CTIA Has a Hard Time on Today Show Prison Jamming Segment

On May 12, John Walls, Vice President, Public Affairs of CTIA had a hard time on NBC's Today Show on the topic of cell phone jamming in prisons. The YouTube version of the video is linked to the photo above so you decide for yourself how it went.

Carl Lackl, murder victim featured on Today Show Segment.
His murder was ordered by an inmate over a cell phone.

The segment featured the sister and mother of Carl Lackl, a murder trial witness who was in turn murdered as a result of a hit ordered by an incarcerated prisoner.

At 4:20 of the YouTube clip, you can hear Mr. Walls saying it is "outrageous, actually insulting" that people feel that the cell industry is making a profit on prison cell calls. He also says that there are "other viable legal solutions that should be looked at". So, CTIA, why have you rigorously opposed even the smallest scale test of prison jamming? Why do you cling to an FCC staff interpretation of Section 333 of the Communications Act that does not appear to be consistent with the legislative history of the section - a section requested by FCC itself in 1990 for a different reason?

I suspect the issue is not the revenue from prison cell phone use that CTIA member get. (Although oddly a source that CTIA itself had put me in touch with reported that his monitoring of cell phone use showed that prison cell phone calls may be a big revenue stream for Tracfone - a firm that buys minutes wholesale from the major CTIA members in large quantities and then resells them for prepaid, usually anonymous cellphones.) I suspect the issue is really a "slippery slope" problem where the industry's main concern is that jamming might move from prisons where cell phone use is dangerous to society to other places where it is merely annoying such as restaurants and theaters. Such movement would make cell phones less functional and thus really hurt revenue.

But rather than deal with the slippery slope issue, CTIA has chosen to cling to their Section 333 interpretation and the technological nonsense that any jamming, not matter how well planned, will inevitably result in interference to others. CTIA - if radio propagation in the CMRS bands is so unpredictable, how is the industry been able to achieve such huge increases in frequency efficiency through frequency reuse. Why do femtocells work without causing interference?

Thus we have Sen. Hutchison's legislation, S. 251 and Rep. Brady's House version, H.R. 560.

But maybe FCC can address the root problem of this issue before Congress steps in. A legislative solution will inevitably involve details that will become problematical as the industry and technology evolve in the next few years. An FCC solution should be a lot more pragmatic and CTIA should realize it has a major "home court advantage" in shaping the details if the resolution of this issue is at FCC.

CTIA - this is a blog, feel free to respond. Any language fit for broadcast media will be printed in full.

How Does FCC Compare with Other Agencies?

The Washington Post today had a big article on the 2009 Best Places to Work in the Federal Government report from the Partnership for Public Service and American University's Institute for the Study of Public Policy Implementation (ISPPI). The Post describes the report methodology,

The partnership developed the 2009 scores from responses to three questions federal workers were asked in the Office of Personnel Management's 2008 Federal Human Capital Survey: Would employees recommend their organizations as good places to work? How satisfied are employees with their jobs? How satisfied are employees with their agencies?

Since this report is based on 2008 OPM data it does not reflect any postelection changes. However, it emphasizes what the new FCC leadership has to address.

FCC ranked 28th out of 32 ranked small agencies. Its score of 55.0 also put it lower than all the large agencies except the Department of Transportation. The only small agencies scoring worse than FCC were: International Boundary and Water Commission, Selective Service System, Broadcasting Board of Governors, and Federal Labor Relations Authority. Also 20 out of the 216 ranked "agency subcomponents" ranked lower than FCC including FAA, FEMA, TSA, and FCC's neighbor - Bureau of Engraving and Printing. NTIA was not treated as a subcomponent so there is no data on it.

Thus out of a total of 278 agencies and subcomponents that were rated, only 25 had a lower score than FCC.

The 2008 OPM data was the first time FCC participated in the OPM program. I hope both that FCC continues to participate and that the new management team will make FCC the desirable place to work that it should be so that industry and our whole economy benefits from improved and timely telecom policy.

NRC press release on being the best rated agency in two consecutive reports
==========================
Update

From 5 /21 Washington Post

Agencies Advised To Improve Morale

The administration will keep close tabs on agencies that performed poorly in this year's "Best Places to Work in the Federal Government" survey, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag warned yesterday.

"I'm very pleased with the high performers, but we also need to improve the bottom performers," Orszag said at an event releasing the study, which was conducted by the Partnership for Public Service and American University's Institute for the Study of Public Policy Implementation, our colleague Ed O'Keefe reports.

"You should expect, those agencies that are not doing as well, that we will be paying attention. We will be looking to you to develop a game plan to improve performance," Orszag said.

New Docs Show
FCC Glossed Over BPL Flaws

Surprising, well, nobody

by Karl Bode
(Reprinted with permission from dslreports.com)

The relationship between the FCC and ham operators has always been a contentious one, due to BPL's interference potential and the FCC's rather, uh, over-enthusiastic promotion of the flawed technology. As part of an effort to pretend their pro-incumbent policies resulted in something more than an uncompetitive duopoly, the agency used to call BPL the "great broadband hope." Hams have always alleged that the agency ignored interference data for the benefit of the BPL industry.

Interestingly, the American Radio Relay League (ARRL) has obtained and published on its website FCC studies it had obtained from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request it filed at the end of March. In October of 2007 the ARRL filed suit against the FCC, alleging that the FCC had held studies on BPL that may not have supported its own position on BPL until it was too late to comment on them. The FCC dismissed these documents as "internal communications" that did not factor in on its decision to adopt the BPL rules.

The FCC fought releasing the documents for years, until new FOIA rules implemented by the Obama administration finally resulted in the documents being released earlier this week. The studies show, among other things, that the FCC redacted, manipulated and ignored data in order to support their own position that power lines were perfectly suited to broadband, while ignoring advise from numerous providers and vendors in the sector.

The FCC chose to ignore the findings from a 2003 study that plainly stated that BPL was not a point source.
View PDF of original and redacted version

That's in line with previous criticisms levied at the the way former FCC boss Kevin Martin ran the agency. In Martin's FCC, objective science and real data were an afterthought to political agendas or fealty to industry lobbyists. Even employees within the FCC complained that the agency had become a political animal that frequently ignored or violated the commission's own guidelines at the whims of Chairman Martin.

Unfortunately for Martin and the FCC, all of their BPL cheerleading efforts came to naught. With the recent closure of several of the technology's highest-profile trials, BPL exists as little more than a fringe player being used in very select rural locations to provide connectivity. Most of the BPL vendors the FCC was presumably working for have since moved on to promote smart electrical grid functionality.

Another example of FCC "redaction"
View PDF of original and redacted version

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

ars technica has a more detailed and more scathing discussion of what was revealed with the ARRL FOIA request entitled "Did the FCC cook the books on broadband over power lines?" The blog part of the article has the following input from "tetrault":

"So, when will the Obama administration announce that the Office of the Inspector General has opened an investigation of the FCC to determine who altered the data, why they altered the data, and whether there was outside influence (bribery)? Is your guess "never"? The Obama administration prefers big businesses that it can control (and get bribes from) to little guys such as ham radio operators. Therefore, no investigation will occur."

Actually an interesting idea, although readers may recall I have little faith in the present FCC IG.

Meanwhile our congratulations to Steve Martin of the FCC Lab (shown in photo at left from an IEEE meeting)who was the original author of the redacted document. He is the only one in this mess who emerged as a hero. (I suspect some of Steve's supervisor's may have supported him, but we will probably never find out.)

24th Anniversary of
FCC ISM Band Spread Spectrum Rules:

Basis of Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and Many Other Products

Today is the 24th anniversary of the FCC ISM band unlicensed rules - now codified as §15.247. These rules are the basis for Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, most of the cordless phones sold in the US, and a variety of other useful products.

These rules were an FCC initiative, begun during the Carter Administration and finished during the Reagan Administration to remove barriers to new technologies. (See George Mason University conference on history of these rules.)

While many people think FCC's role is to be responsive to industry, all major industry players at the time opposed these rules. Thus the public interest is not always the direct interest of the largest parties involved.

From these humble beginnings, various firms, both startups and established manufacturers, developed a wide variety of products to serve the public. Many of these products have changed our daily lives.

I am reminded of a quote from Saint-Exupery’s The Little Prince:

"As for the future, your task is not to foresee it, but to enable it.”

24 years ago today, FCC did not foresee all the §15.247 products that would result, but it surely enabled them. It listened to but was not blinded by the comments from existing regulatees opposing change. Hopefully the new FCC can continue to look for technologies blocked by anachronistic regulation and enable them.

May 9, 1985 FCC discussion of Report & Order

on spread spectrum technology - world's first

general authorization of civil spread spectrum/CDMA!

[Click on photo for video of FCC discussion]

The Job Isn't Finished Until You Complete the Paperwork!

On March 17th, the Commission patted itself on the back about the adoption of the Docket 09-36 NPRM shown at left. The press release said,

"The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today proposed to allocate spectrum and adopt service and technical rules for the utilization of new implanted medical devices that would greatly expand the use of functional electric stimulation to restore sensation, mobility and function to paralyzed limbs and organs. These implanted neuromuscular microstimulators would function as wireless broadband medical micro-power networks (MMNs) within a patient. By eliminating the wires now used to interconnect multiple implanted neuromuscular microstimulators and the external power source for the implants, MMNs would greatly reduce the risk of infection and increase patient mobility and system reliability.

Several commenters assert that this technology could revolutionize medical treatment and therapy for millions of people living with brain and spinal cord injuries and neuromuscular disorders such as multiple sclerosis, polio, cerebral palsy, and ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, often referred to as "Lou Gehrig's Disease”), as well as numerous other neurological disorders. It could be used in conjunction with next-generation prosthetic limbs to provide wireless sensation and control to the prostheses. Of particular note, this technology can provide an important tool in the medical treatment and care of numerous U.S. soldiers who suffered spinal cord, brain, and other serious injuries in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other missions abroad.

It is hard to imagine a more positive action for the Commission to take than proposing such rules to help disabled veterans and other with degenerative diseases. Acting Chairman Copps added,

I am pleased to support this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which examines the possible allocation of additional spectrum and service rules for use by advanced wireless devices that could significantly enhance the quality of life of many Americans that suffer from a wide array of neuromuscular disorders.

Confirming bipartisan support for this issue of zero controversy, Commissioner McDowell added,

I am delighted to finally be able to vote to approve this notice of proposed rulemaking, which was originally filed with the Commission in September 2007. Acting Chairman Copps deserves praise for bringing this exciting proposal forward and giving it the attention it deserves. Our action today takes another step to improve the quality of life for millions of Americans with impaired mobility and paralysis.

However, repeated searches of the Federal Register show no sign of the NPRM. As in all such NPRMs the comment period is tied to Federal Register publication, in this case ending 120 days after publication. Every day spent getting this to the Federal Register is a day that our disabled veterans are denied this technology.

Now we previously wrote about how it took over 3 months, from November 4, 2008 to February 17, 2009, for the TV whitespace, Docket 04-186, decision to get published. But that was a very contentious proceeding worthy of detailed 8th Floor oversight. Why is this one taking so long? A review of the text of the NPRM shows none of the "red flags" like complicated diagrams/charts or incorporation by reference of outside documents that sometimes cause the Office of the Federal Register to send items back to FCC for ministerial corrections.

Our best guess is that the continuing interregnum and the focus on DTV is causing all spectrum issues to get very low priority. However, similar low prioritization has been going on for at least 2 years now for a variety of reasons. While I have not asked my former colleagues in FCC/OET about the cause of the current hangup on this NPRM, it is almost certainly the notorious BARF process that requires multiple reviews of formal FCC documents by 8th Floor staffers who are currently focusing on other issues. Improving productivity and throughput may require better

• trust and
• cooperation and
• accountability

between the 8th Floor and the career staff.

Spectrum is a highly regulated area and innovation and capital formation for such highly regulated innovative technologies needs interaction between industry and the regulator. The FCC's UK counterpart, Ofcom, is able to make progress in all its "product lines", e.g. spectrum, broadcasting, telephone pricing, etc., at the same time. I hope the incoming team takes decisive action to stop this ongoing spectrum paralysis at FCC. If technology to help disabled veterans can't get reasonable timely consideration, imagine the challenges facing other technologies.
==========
UPDATE

On May 6 FCC released an Erratum making two small changes to the adopted rules.

On May 13 the NPRM was finally published in the Federal Register, 57 days after adoption!

While the Commission was struggling to get this published during the focus on DTV, it did have time to adopt a new NOI on the issue of Arbitron's "Personal People Meters". I note that even the Commission can't decide if it has jurisdiction in this matter, stating in para. 27,

Commenters that advocate particular actions should specifically address the Commission’s statutory authority to take such actions. Does the Commission have jurisdiction to require the submission of information concerning PPM methodology or to regulate PPM methodology? If so, what is the basis
of that jurisdiction?

I suspect that the paralysis over the MMN NPRM is the overreaction several years ago to the release of an item with a staff edit that offended someone on the 8th Floor. This resulted in the present BARF process that requires multiple reviews by 8th Floor staffers of even the most obscure edits to the most obscure agenda items. If FCC is ever to improve its productivity in its jurisdiction, the 8th Floor has to learn how to delegate, manage, and hold staff accountable for these ministerial functions. That way it can achieve productivity comparable to its UK counterpart, Ofcom, which is able to "rubs its stomach and pat its head" at the same time and not get paralyzed by focusing on one topic at a time.