New Commissioner Nominee:
Mignon L. Clyburn of South Carolina

President Obama has nominated Commissioner Mignon L. Clyburn of the Public Service Commission of South Carolina to the FCC to replace Comm. Adelstein. (Official bio at PSCSC website)

From the White House press release:

Mignon L. Clyburn, Nominee for Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission

Mignon Clyburn has been a member of the Public Service Commission of South Carolina since 1998. The Public Service Commission regulates South Carolina's investor owned public utilities, including providers of telecommunications services. The South Carolina General Assembly elected Clyburn as a Commissioner representing the Sixth Congressional District in May of 1998, and she has been re-elected three times. She chaired the Commission from 2002 to 2004. Clyburn is a past chair of the Southeastern Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. She is presently the chair of the Washington Action Committee of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC). Clyburn also serves on NARUC's Audit Committee and Utilities Market Access Partnership Board. Clyburn graduated from the University of South Carolina with a Bachelor of Science degree in Banking, Finance & Economics in 1984. Before her election to the Public Service Commission she spent fourteen years as the Publisher and General Manager of The Coastal Times, a weekly newspaper in Charleston, South Carolina.

TV Newsday comments,

She is a woman and an African-American — assets in diversity-conscious Washington — and, perhaps more important, she is the daughter of one of the most powerful men on Capitol Hill, Majority Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina.

Welcome to Washington, Commissioner!

Acting Chairman Copps Testifies on FCC FY2010 Budget


In testimony today , Acting FCC Chairman Copps asks for many things, two of which were long overdue.

"During Fiscal Year 2010, the FCC also proposes to take some necessary steps forward to modernize our technological infrastructure, for which we seek $15 million. First, we will upgrade and integrate our IT systems to make our processes more transparent and easier for the public to access. For instance, we will upgrade our website capabilities so that consumers will be able to perform keyword searches of comments filed in ongoing proceedings, thereby permitting and encouraging increased public participation in our decision-making process."

As I have written many times in the past, the FCC website is a disaster, sort of the nation's information policy attic. ECFS, the comment filing system suffers from 2 sets of hasty design decisions whihc have never been corrected: The original mid-1980s design for terminals in the Docket Reading Room which was a "quick fix" to the "Mrs. Field's Cookies scandal" - where FCC file clerks gave preferential access to bound files of comments if the paralegals bribed them with their favorite cookies. Then a later quick conversion to Internet technology in the mid 1990s. At least now there is light at the end of the tunnel!

I hope while they are changing this they will allow electronic filing of all documents. At present, some documents such as petitions or review and petitions for rulemaking can not be filed electronically. In restricted proceedings, all comments must be served with paper copies. These are anachronistic rules and should be changed.

"(T)he FCC will improve internal coordination and information sharing by its staff. For example, at present, each of the various Bureaus maintains its own distinct licensing database. This patchwork of data is inefficient, requiring redundant processing and IT support efforts. Moreover, because our data is stove piped, it is often difficult for the Commission to extract the information necessary for particular policy decisions. Finally, absent a comprehensive knowledge of each Bureau’s system, it is difficult for the parties that participate in our proceedings andformembers of the public to navigate the various databases to cull the valuable information that each database contains."

Thus the cognoscenti know that the Universal Licensing System is only "universal" within the universe of the Wireless Bureau. Broadcast licenses and licenses within the purview of the International Bureau are in independent systems. In ancient history they were in one systems and Don Campbell of OET has done a heroic "Humpty Dumpty" job trying to use software tricks calls GenMen to create the appearance of the comprehensive database for those users who need complete information.

Want to Try Your Hand at Federal Spectrum Management?

Fed up with how Washington makes key spectrum decisions? Here's your chance to get involved!

NASA has a senior spectrum job open, possibly their IRAC rep although that is not stated. Here's a link to the full announcement. Note you can even apply online for this $117,787 to $162,900 pa position. Is this job announcement actually rigged? Frankly, I have no inside information in this case.

Vacancy No.	HQ09C0119	Department	NASA, Headquarters
Salary	$117,787.00 to $162,900.00	Grade	00 to 00
Perm/Temp	Temporary	FT/PT	Full-time
Open Date	4/17/2009	Close Date	5/8/2009
Job Link	Apply Online	Who may apply	Public
Location:
WASHINGTON, DC

Job Description

Department: US National Aeronautics & Space Administration Agency: Headquarters Sub Agency: Space Operations Mission Directorate (SOMD), NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC Job Announcement Number: HQ09C0119 Senior Spectrum Advisor Salary Range: 117,787.00 - 162,900.00 USD per year Open Period: Friday, April 17, 2009 to Friday, May 08, 2009 Series & Grade: SL-0855-00 Position Information: Full-Time Term appointment Duty Locations: 1 vacancy - Washington DC Metro Area Who May Be Considered: This announcement is open to all qualified U.S citizens. Job Summary: NASA, the world's leader in space and aeronautics is always seeking outstanding scientists, engineers, and other talented professionals to carry forward the great discovery process that its mission demands. Creativity. Ambition. Teamwork. A sense of daring. And a probing mind. That's what it takes to join NASA, one of the best places to work in the Federal Government. The Senior Spectrum Advisor for the Space Communications and Navigation Program (SCaN), Space Operations Mission Directorate (SOMD) is located at NASA Headquarters. The Office of Space Operations (OSO) is responsible for providing top-level requirements devlopment, policy and programmatic oversight of NASA space operations related to exploration in and beyond low-Earth orbit with special emphasis on human activities in space. NOTE: Please refer to the "How You Will Be Evaluated" section for additional application instructions. This is a Senior Level (SL) position. Current Agency policy requires that SL appointments be time-limited (temporary promotions or term appointments). The initial appointment will be for 3 years, with the possibility of extending up to an additional 2 years. If selectee is currently a permanent NASA civil service employee he/she will receive a temporary promotion. Employee will then return to a position at a grade level no lower than the grade previously held. If selectee is on a nonpermanent civil service appointment or is not currently on a civil service appointment he/she will receive a term appointment. NASA uses the USAJobs resume as the basic application document. NASA limits resumes to the equivalent of about six typed pages, or approximately 22,000 characters (including spaces). You cannot complete the application process if your USAJobs resume is too long. More information about the NASA application process is also available under the "How to Apply" section of this announcement. Key Requirements: This is a drug-testing designated position Position subject to pre-employment background investigation This position requires a TS/SCI security clearance Major Duties: The Senior Spectrum Advisor serves as an expert analyzing spectrum utilization issues and policies and provides expert service and recommendations to the management officials with delegated responsibility to direct and discharge all major elements of the Agency's specturm management program. Is a technical expert in both national and international spectrum management. The incumbent represents NASA in the development of both national and international spectrum management and use policy while performing official liaison with national bodies including the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the State Department, plus international bodies such as the International Telecommunication union (ITU) and the Space Frequency Coordination Group (SFCG). Contact Information: Elaine Grunther Phone: 202-358-2336 Email: elaine.grunther-1@nasa.gov Or write: NASA's Resume Operations Center Mailstop: HS50 Marshall Space Flight Center, AL 35812

Do You Miss Kevin Martin?


A Video Interview

The Washington Post, of all people, has posted a rather sympathetic interview with Kevin Martin in which he complains about the other commissioners. But it is better just to let him speak for himself.

dtv.gov Gets a Needed Overhaul
Still Needs Work

The above is a snapshot from the revised FCC dtv.gov website, announced this week at the NAB convention where all commissioners are required to genuflect. (Anyone remember the furor when Reed Hundt had the chutzpah to attend a major ITU conference that conflicted with the NAB show?)

The change is a positive improvement, but the snapshot, featuring questions highlighted on the top page - not obscure issues, show lingering important problems.

Can I Use My UHF/VHF Antenna to Receive DTV?

Television stations broadcasting in digital use both the VHF (channels 2-13) and UHF (channels 14-51) bands. Many indoor antennas use “rabbit ears” for the VHF band and a “loop” or “bow-tie” antenna for the UHF band.

There is a lot of truth to this. But if you live in or near another of the "orange triangles" in the new improved FCC coverage maps - a great improvement to the site made around January - you need more antenna gain, basically a better antenna or an outdoor replacement for your rabbit ears. These "orange triangles" occur because of stations changing locations, changing frequency, and changing power. They are a small fraction of US homes, but they are quite real. The advice is oversimplistic.

Does the DTV Transition Affect TV Sets That Are Connected to Cable Services?

No. If you subscribe to cable service, the DTV transition should not affect any TV sets that are connected to your cable services. The DTV transition applies only to full-power broadcast television stations – stations that use the public airwaves to transmit their programming to viewers through a broadcast antenna. (Emphasis added.)

As I have written before, this is also a half truth. If your analog TV is connected to the cable system without a set top box and if you watch basic tier nonbroadcast cable, e.g. CNN, C-SPAN, MTV, Food Network, etc., you are in for an unpleasant surprise. While communications policy wonks will quibble over parsing the website quote and my sentence, try to explain that to your neighbor or an elderly person in a nursing home. The American public deserves a clearer explanation of the basic tier situation, not one from K St. lawyers. I am not saying the policy is wrong, just that there is a dearth of consumer friendly information.

I note that the new FCC/Consumers Union "DTV Made Easy" booklet has better explanations of both the antenna and CATV problems, but is written in rather odd English - perhaps reflecting too much editing from too many editors:

"My TV is connected to a for-pay cable, satellite, or phone company service.
If so, you’re all set! Any TV, no matter how old, will continue to work with cable, satellite, or phone-company TV service that you are already paying for. Most subscribers don’t have to do anything to keep getting their usual TV programming. One exception: If your cable company discontinues all analog service (its own choice, not required by the government), subscribers who currently plug the cable directly into the TV may need to rent a cable box, usually for $5 to $7 a month. (This is not the same as a DTV converter box, which is used with an antenna.) The cable company must notify affected consumers and offer the equipment they need. However, most cable companies are expected to continue analog-cable service, and they cannot require you to get a box or upgrade to digital cable to get the local channels you now receive."

But why should the web site contain misleading information by ignoring the "one exception"? Why not link to the booklet in a note saying to look for the details there?

Public Safety
and
700 MHz:

Waiting for FCC to Act

On April 7, Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO), CTIA—The Wireless Association® (CTIA), National Emergency Number Association (NENA), and National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) filed yet another ex parte urging FCC to take action in Docket 08-167 on the continued use of 700 MHz by wireless mics - most of which just happen to be illegal at present anyway.

"The undersigned associations, on behalf of public safety and commercial wireless 700 MHz band licensees, hereby reiterate their call for the Commission to act without delay to: (1) clear wireless microphones and other low power auxiliary station (“LPAS”) devices from the 700 MHz band; and (2) prohibit the manufacture and sale of 700 MHz wireless microphones and other LPAS devices for domestic use.

Absent prompt Commission action, interference and communications disruption in the 700 MHz band are inevitable – to first responders, to broadband customers, and to users of wireless microphones. Consistent with the FCC’s tentative conclusions in the 700 MHz Wireless Microphone Notice,1 the outcome of this proceeding is equally clear – wireless microphone and other LPAS devices must cease operations in the 700 MHz band, and further manufacture and sale of such devices for domestic use must be prohibited. Continued delay of a resolution in this matter, moreover, impedes the achievement of Congress’ objective to clear the 700 MHz band and make the spectrum available for new public safety and commercial systems. We are unaware of any public policy justification for further delay." (Emphasis added.)

Your blogger is not aware of any policy justification for not resolving this issue either. The ever aggressive Shure advocacy of their customers' continued use has not even replied to the combined public safety filing that is now 7 days old. In an article in Urgent Communications, formerly MRT: Mobile Radio Technology, APCO Director of Legal and Government Affairs Robert Gurss states, "Our concern is that the number of (700 MHz public safety) users is going to dramatically increase, and that's when you're going to have problems [with interference from wireless microphones]." The article adds,

"Following directions from Congress, the FCC largely has avoided taking action on matters that are not part of the DTV transition. But Gurss noted that the wireless-microphone issue does relate to the DTV transition, a significant part of which is to deliver usable spectrum to public-safety and commercial licensees.

Without FCC action establishing clear rules that wireless microphones cannot interfere with primary users, disruptions to public-safety and commercial wireless transmissions in the 700 MHz band are "inevitable," according to the joint letter from three public-safety organizations and CTIA, the trade association for commercial wireless carriers."

FCC Managing Director Reportedly Dismissed

47 U.S.C. 155(e)
Managing Director; appointment, functions, pay

The Commission shall have a Managing Director who shall be appointed by the Chairman subject to the approval of the Commission. The Managing Director, under the supervision and direction of the Chairman, shall perform such administrative and executive functions as the Chairman shall delegate. The Managing Director shall be paid at a rate equal to the rate then payable for level V of the Executive Schedule.

The position of FCC Managing Director was created around 1980 as a reform to improve the management of the FCC. On April 2, a FCC news release contained the following item:

"Anthony J. Dale, Managing Director, is currently on leave and will leave the agency in the next several weeks to pursue other interests."

Mr. Dale was "named" as Managing Director by former Chairman Martin on March 29, 2006. At the time he had worked at FCC for almost 10 years. He replaced Andrew Fishel who was appointed by former Chairman Sikes around 1989.

Fishel had held a similar job at EEOC when Justice Clarence Thomas was chairman there and since he had helped EEOC move to a new building he had some logical experience for what was a pending issue at the time. Fishel's transfer to FCC was probably related to Justice Thomas' connection with Chairman Sikes, since both had worked for Sen. Danforth while he had been Attorney General of Missouri. Fishel moved around the time Thomas was appointed to the Appeals Court. When Fishel left the position in March 2006, he moved into a nondefined role in the FCC's Enforcement Bureau that was not on any organization charts. Contacts in EB knew he was there, but had no idea what he was doing or even if he was doing anything. Reportedly he retired in late 2008 after meeting retirement eligibility.

The first Managing Director was Edward Minkel, appointed by Chairman Fowler in 1981 as his "management expert". Minkel had worked at FCC in the 1970s on the Chicago Spectrum Management Task Force, a novel private land mobile (Part 90) spectrum management experiment that was widely opposed by industry that was then under the hegemony of one large manufacturer. (Oddly, the techniques it developed are used in Canada to this day.) Minkel had been RIFed by FCC when the Chicago effort was closed in the late 1970s - a fact he appeared not to forget.

So why is Dale "leav(ing) the agency in the next several weeks to pursue other interests"? The rumor within FCC is that he was fired for not giving sufficient oversight to the FCC's budget. While, the underlying problem was probably Martin's legendary secrecy and lack of trust of civil servants, there are now rumored to be major budget problems at the FCC, which is one reason why there have been no job postings in months, and Dale is being held accountable for not detecting those problems.

Let's hope they bring in a nonpolitical person for this nonpolicy job - perhaps someone who has held another high management position in an agency with a better management tradition than FCC. And let's hope that the new team can develop a new team spirit between political appointees and career staff where that each respect each other and their respective roles.

Time: Here's to the
Death of Broadcast

Faithful readers may recall another post in February entitled "NYTimes: Broadcast TV Faces Struggle to Stay Viable". It had quotes from NYT on the declining viewership of over-the-air television networks as opposed to cable only networks,e.g. HBO.

Now Time, admittedly HBO's owner, has a similar piece in the April 6 issue:

In 1994, when ER debuted, NBC, CBS and ABC ruled TV. The fourth network, Fox, had no top-20 shows. Cable was flourishing but was hardly a threat. Only a handful of dorks (like me) were using "graphical user interfaces" like Netscape to look at something called the World Wide Web.

Fifteen years later, the networks are, as the TV docs say, crashing. In the 1994-95 season, 43% of U.S. households, on average, watched the Big Four at a given moment in prime time. Now it's 27%.

...

The most obvious reason the small-TV era has made television better is the rise of cable. Even as Fox finds new hours on the clock to air American Idol, brilliant comedies and (especially) dramas on cable are flourishing--Breaking Bad, United States of Tara, In Treatment, Rescue Me and The Colbert Report, just for starters.

The article has a graphic showing the percentage of households watching ABC, CBS, and NBC through the years. In 1952-3 it was 76%; now it is 18%. 68% of households watched I Love Lucy when it was the top program, now American Idol gets 16%. Similar data was in the NY Times graphic entitled "Defining Success Downward".

Which brings me again to the advertising in Metro's Capitol South station shown at the top of this post. I am sure that NAB is not totally falsifying this claim, but could someone from their community please post here, anonymously if you wish, a reference to this data and what it specifically means.

Interesting Waiver Request
in 900 MHz ISM Band
Out for Public Comment

On March 26, The FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology released a public notice asking for comment on a pending waiver request. Often these requests are not put out for comment, but this one must have crossed the threshold for seeking input.

The PN summarizes the issue as follows:

Starkey Laboratories, Inc., (“Starkey Laboratories”) has filed a request for waiver of Part 15 of the Commission’s rules to permit a reduction in the 6 dB-bandwidth requirements under Section 15.247(a)(2) for unlicensed operation of systems using digital modulation techniques in the 902-928MHz (915 MHz) band. Starkey Laboratories states that its proposed system would facilitate audio enhancement capabilities for the hearing impaired via the use of digital audio equipped assistive listening devices (“ALDs”).

In a waiver request filed 11/12/08 by former FCC Commissioner Gloria Tristiani, Starkey asserts that it "has made a significant investment in low power RF communication devices ('low power devices') in the 902 to 928 MHz ISM band." Starkey seeks to sell advanced hearing aids with 2-way capabilities and say it can not do so in the existing 217 MHz band used for communications with hearing aids without the following rule changes:

Allow two-way voice and data communication;
Increase the occupied bandwidth up to 300 KHz;
3 MHz total bandwidth;
Max power spectral density of = 6 dBm/10 kHz; and
Max power of +20 dBm (This is no change from the present max power).

Instead of doing this, Starkey seeks a waiver of the ISM band spread spectrum rules, 15.247, to permit bandwidths of 100 kHz as opposed to the current minimum of 500 kHz while retaining the same power spectral density limit of 8 dBm/3 kHz (15.247(e)).

The request states

By granting the waiver Starkey Laboratories host devices will use a narrower bandwidth than the minimum bandwidth required under 15.247 thus reducing potential interference.

Readers are encouraged to review this and tell FCC whether they agree with this statement. If 902-928 MHz 15.247 devices were all operating at the maximum permitted power, then the 8 dBm/3kHz limit of 15.247(e) would be the determining factor in interference. However, I suspect that most operate at lower power due to battery limitations and RF safety/SAR issues. Thus the narrower bandwidth at comparable total power might increase interference. On the other hand the interference range may be so small that there is little likelihood of a close encounter resulting in actual interference.

The proposed enhanced hearing aids that Starkey wants to sell sounds like a great idea. The question is whether or not selling them in the 902-928 MHz band under the proposed waiver is a great idea. FCC has established Docket 09-38 for this issue.

TAC is Coming Back

Responding to concerns expressed here previously FCC appears to be reviving the Technological Advisory Council, its advisory committee on the technical aspects of communications policy. The following announcement appeared on the FCC home page today:

FCC REQUESTS NOMINATIONS BY MAY 8, 2009 FOR
MEMBERSHIP ON THE TECHNOLOGICAL ADVISORY COUNCIL

The Federal Communications Commission Technological Advisory Council (TAC) is in the process of being reestablished. The Commission is requesting nominations for membership on the TAC for its next 2 year cycle.

In reestablishing the TAC, the Commission noted that rapid advances in technology have resulted in innovations in how telecommunications services are provided to, and are accessed by, users of those services. Many of these advances create challenges and opportunities for the growth of telecommunications and use of the radio spectrum. The Commission must remain abreast of new
developments in technology so that it can effectively fulfill its responsibilities under the Communications Act.

The purpose of the TAC is to provide technical advice to the Federal Communications Commission and to make recommendations on the issues and questions presented to it by the FCC. The TAC will address questions referred to it by the FCC Chairman, the FCC Chief Technologist, the Chief of the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, or the TAC Designated Federal Officer. The questions referred to the TAC will be directed to technological and technical issues in the field of communications. Among the potential topics that the TAC may consider are spectrum policy, broadband technology and deployment, communications technology that enhances and supports public safety,
Internet security, and communications technology required to support emerging systems such as the smart grid and tele-health applications.

The TAC will meet three to five times per year, with the possibility of more frequent meetings by informal subcommittees. Meetings of the Committee shall be open to the public. Timely notice of each meeting will be published in the Federal Register and will be further publicized through other appropriate vehicles.

The Commission will provide facilities necessary to conduct meetings. Members of the Council will serve without any government compensation, and will not be entitled to travel expenses, per diem or subsistence allowances. The Council will consist of recognized technical experts in telecommunications and related fields.

The Commission will accept nominations for the Council through May 8, 2009. The Commission, at its discretion, may consider nominations received after this date, but consideration of late submissions is not guaranteed. Individuals may apply for, or nominate another individual for, membership on the Council. Each nomination or application must include:

a. the name and title of the applicant or nominee and a description of the interest the
applicant or nominee will represent;
b. the applicant's or nominee's mail address, e-mail address, telephone number, and
facsimile number (where available);
c. reasons whythe applicant or nominee should be appointed to the Council; and
d. the basis for determining the applicant or nominee has achieved peer recognition as a
technical expert.

Nominations and applications should be sent to Jon M. Peha, Chief Technologist, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Room 7-C324, Washington, DC 20554 or
e-mail jon.peha@fcc.gov and please include “TAC nomination” in the subject line.

I hope qualified people express interest - you can be sure that every spectrum lobbyist in DC will try to sign up to push their clients' interests. I hope FCC picks as a quality goal that at least half of the members have achieved significant peer recognition such as being a member of the National Academy of Sciences or a fellow of the IEEE. I also hope that FCC decides to make the TAC be subject to the terms of President Obama's memo on Scientific Integrity .

T-Mobile's
Candor in
FCC Filings Questioned

In a filing in the AWS-3 Docket, 07-195, M2Z Networks (a former client of mine) has raised unusual accusations about the candor of a large FCC licensee, T-Mobile, in multiple filings before the Commission. The M2Z filing is unusual because of the usual "gentlemen's agreement" not to raise such issues, much as the CIA and KGB did not try to kill each other's agents during the Cold War.

The following quote from the beginning gives a hint of the tone.

"Perhaps more fundamentally, however, ex parte filings and other submissions to the FCC must be truthful. If parties advocating before the FCC believe that they can provide false testimony with impunity, the level of detail found in their submissions quickly becomes a secondary concern.

As the attached document demonstrates, for nearly two years, T-Mobile-USA has engaged in a scheme to deceive the Commission concerning (among other things) its indefensible decision to deploy filters in its AWS-1 devices that access the AWS-3 band (for which T-Mobile has no authorization).
...
(T)hree executive-level employees of T-Mobile committed perjury by providing false sworn testimony to the Commission. These false declarations/affidavits were submitted by: (i) Neville R. Ray, T-Mobile’s Senior Vice President for Engineering and Operations; (ii) Cole Brodman, T-Mobile’sChief of Technology and Innovation, and (iii) Joachim Horn, CTO, T-Mobile International AG."

The easiest contention to understand deals with an affidavit filed by T-Mobile and signed by Neville R. Ray Senior Vice President, Engineering and Operations T-Mobile USA, Inc.
It stated,

"Over the next 18 months, I fully expect several million AWS-1 handsets will be with consumers. These handsets have used standards-based equipment, including filter technology, that has been reviewed and approved by the Federal Communications Commission for use in the United States."

M2Z's filing states at p. 6,

"The Commission does not “review and approve” filter technology and does not regulate mobile devices in the manner suggested by Mr. Ray. The declaration claimed that T-Mobile’s AWS-1 filters received Commission approval, yet there were no facts presented to the Commission (nor indeed could there have been any such facts in existence) to support that false assertion. T-Mobile’s selection of filters for its mobile devices, like the selections made by all wireless carriers, was not reviewed or approved
by the Commission."

On March 31, Howard Symons, counsel for T-Mobile filed a brief ex parte statement reporting telephone calls to various FCC officials and stating,

In each conversation, the T-Mobile representative noted that M2Z’s filing raised no new issues but rather sought to disparage T-Mobile by baselessly characterizing T- Mobile’s disagreements with M2Z as “perjury” and “lack of candor.” The T-Mobile representatives indicated that T-Mobile will shortly be filing a written ex parte that responds in full to M2Z spurious attacks"

I will post a link to the T-Mobile response when it is available.

When T-Mobile responds to these accusations, they might also want to address the candor of the following chart they submitted to FCC on 9/22/08 :















Does the T-Mobile AWS-1 receive filter used in US equipment really cutoff at 2155 MHz, the upper boundary of AWS-1 as the diagram shows or does it cover the AWS-3 band as Mr. Ray's statement implies? Perhaps T-Mobile will carefully parse all the sentences in question and show that they were not wrong, just ambiguous and thus not incorrect.

I suspect that the root cause of this problem has been the Commission's laxity in enforcing many of its rules. Thus certain bad practices have crept into the comment process. While the T-Mobile executives almost certainly don't have to fear indictment for perjury, hopefully this episode will make everyone be more careful in filing before FCC, make all filings more credible, and speed resolution of controversies in rulemaking.

Kevin Werbach on
New Rules for a New Age:

Creating an 'Economic Stimulus Agency'
out of the FCC

Wharton legal studies and business ethics professor Kevin Werbach, whose research focuses on the relationship between technology and the economy, recently worked with the Obama administration's transition team on a review of the Federal Communications Commission and related technology and telecommunications issues. During the Clinton Administration, he served as Counsel for New Technology Policy at the FCC. On the Knowledge@Wharton website he has an interview on what he sees for the FCC in the near future.

"The Enlightenment Returns":
Science Magazine Editorial on Obama Memorandum on Scientific Integrity

A prominent communications attorney once told me "Some questions really do have answers". Many of the technical policy questions before FCC involve key nonquantitative factors that are an integral part of the FCC's jurisdiction. But many of them also involve technical subproblems that are often subject to quantitative analysis and answers. Examples include questions like

1) At what distance will a TV White Space device of power x cause interference to a cochannel TV signal of power y?
2) How many terrestrial emitters can be in satellite uplink band z before they impact the uplink adversely?
3) Does cell phone jamming in prisons inevitably lead to harmful interference outside of prisons?

These questions have explicit answers. How the policy makers should make final policy based on these is a subjective question and that is why there are 5 presidential appointees at FCC to make the final decisions.

But in recent years FCC has at times bent the science to meet the needs of powerful interests before it. Will System X cause interference? Let's pick the answer that makes the 8th Floor's job easier That's why I was happy to report on the President's Memorandum on Scientific Integrity recently. This policy applies directly to NTIA since it is an Executive Branch agency. I hope that FCC takes the initiative to adopt it also.

Here is an editorial from Science on this memorandum. Coauthor Varmus is former Director of NIH and a cochair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

The Enlightenment Returns
Kurt Gottfried and Harold Varmus

The authors of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States were children of the Enlightenment. They understood the power that flows from combining human reason with empirical knowledge, and they assumed that the political system they were creating would thrive only in a culture that upheld the values of the Enlightenment. And thrive it did, in large part because our people and government upheld those values throughout most of U.S. history. Recently, however, the precepts of the Enlightenment were ignored and even disdained with respect to the manner in which science was used in the nation's governance. Dogma took precedence over evidence, and opinion over facts. Happily, as was made clear by two policy announcements by President Barack Obama on 9 March 2009, the break in the traditionally harmonious relationship between science and government is now ending.

The first announcement, which dealt decisively with a single important and politically volatile issue, the funding of stem cell research, received the most attention. But the second, on scientific integrity, has greater breadth and at least equal significance. For as the president put it, "promoting science isn't just about providing resources--it is also about protecting free and open inquiry … free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what [scientists] tell us, even when it's inconvenient--especially when it's inconvenient." In using the words "manipulation" and "coercion," the president was not speaking purely in the abstract; he was alluding to recent breaches of a code to which government must adhere if science is to play its proper role in advising the government on such complex issues as public health, climate change, or environmental protection. When the government systematically disregards this code, it undermines the historic role of science as a bulwark of an enlightened democracy.

In the president's Memorandum on Scientific Integrity last week, addressed to the heads of all executive departments and agencies, he directed those officials to neither suppress nor alter scientific and technological findings solicited in the process of policy formulation. He also asked that scientific information developed or used by the government be made readily available to the public. To put these directives in place, the president requested the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop, within 120 days, recommendations "designed to guarantee scientific integrity throughout the executive branch" and to ensure "that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda."

The recommendations called for to sustain these bold ambitions would place scientific competence and integrity among the core principles of the government's science-based endeavors. For example, they should ensure that the selection of scientists for government positions is based on scientific qualifications and experience, establish means for addressing instances in which scientific integrity may be compromised, and provide protections for those who draw attention to possible assaults on the integrity of scientific advice. The need for these measures derives, in part, from the many well-documented cases in which scientific integrity was recently breached, as when political appointees shut government scientists out of critical decisions that hinged on scientific information, prevented the transmission of scientific reports to Congress, appointed unqualified individuals to scientific panels because of their ideological or political persuasion, or censored government reports dealing with climate change and species extinction.

The U.S. scientific community now has an opportunity to strengthen the president's initiative by informing students, colleagues, and fellow citizens about the issues at stake; by willingly offering professional advice to government either informally or when invited to serve on agency panels; by supporting and encouraging scientists who are considering careers in government; or by taking a turn in government service. The president has taken a large and inspiring step to restore the historically beneficial balance between science and government; we should all now offer to help with the enlightened effort just launched.