SpectrumTalk

SpectrumTalk has moved! Please change you bookmarks & RSS feeds

2010-01-31T17:08:00.000-05:00

After several years here at Blogspot, a free Google service, SpectrumTalk is moving over to an updated Marcus Spectrum Solutions website, www.marcus-spectrum.com

The new URL for the blog is

http://www.marcus-spectrum.com/Blog/Blog.html

RSS Feed:

http://www.marcus-spectrum.com/Blog/files/blog.xml

The older content will stay here. Some will be ported to the new site as resources permit.

New posts will only be on the new site.

Thanks you, Google, for the hosting in the past. You probably won't miss the traffic.

Please contact me if you have any problems or any other comments:

Reboot FCC.gov Update

2010-01-22T15:42:00.000-05:00

Your Blogger's Suggestions Doing Well

In the voting on the FCC suggestion site, your blogger's suggestions seem to be doing rather well.

The top suggestions so far deal with the following:

Require at least one FCC Commissioner to be an engineer - 30 votes
Get rid of the BPL - 25 votes
Automatically renew an Amateur Radio License for a full 10 year term when the operator upgrades - 19 votes
Get rid of rules that cannot be enforced such as the GMRS license requirement - 18 votes

These seem to have significant input from the personal radio crowd! No one seemed to pay any attention to how FCC would "require at least one FCC commissioner to be an engineer". No one seemed to notice that some engineers favored BPL

But the next highest vote is the suggestion shown at the top of the pagee. If you agree, could you surf over to the website, signin in with either your Facebook/Google/Yahoo etc. account or you can create a new UserVoice account, and consider voting for this suggestion and others you find of value. Better yet, input your own ideas

I received the following reply from Steve Crowley to a previous blog post which I shall repeat here:

"Relatedly, in September, the FCC received a Petition for Rulemaking from a proponent of wireless technologies intended to reduce cell phone use that might cause distracted driving. As far as I know there was no Public Notice from the FCC. I wonder if there have been similar filings, given the current elevation of the issue of distracted driving? Thus, I support your proposal to publish lists of all Petitions that have been filed.

The Petition I am referring to can be found on the proponent's web site:

http://www.trinitynoble.com/pdf/FCC_Petition_4_Rulemaking.pdf"

This complements well a suggestion by Richard Weil that I have commented on at the FCC site. You might want to support that suggestion also.

Legislative Action on 2 Spectrum Bills

2010-01-21T13:45:00.000-05:00

The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet has approved the following 2 spectrum bills:

HR 3019 Spectrum Relocation Improvement Act of 2009 - Amends the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act to require the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to post on its website detailed transition plans from each federal entity that is eligible for payments from the Spectrum Relocation Fund for costs related to the reallocation of frequencies from federal to nonfederal use. Requires the federal entities, to the fullest extent possible, to provide for sharing and coordination of eligible frequencies with commercial licensees. Requires federal entities to complete spectrum relocation within one year of receiving relocation payments.

HR 3125 Radio Spectrum Inventory Act - Amends the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act to require the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to create and maintain an inventory of each radio spectrum band of frequencies used in the United States Table of Frequency Allocations from 225 megahertz to 10 gigahertz and report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives. Sets forth provisions concerning national security.

Interested readers may recall that I favor the spectrum inventory but am concerned that without some parallel work on clarifying the meaning of "harmful interference" that it will be a waste of time and resources.

Backers of the bill:

What do you think will happen after the inventory is done?
How do you want FCC and NTIA to determine if apparently vacant spectrum can be used without causing harmful interference?

HR 3019 has some interesting provisions for independent review of agency transition plans for reallocations. This is the first time I recall any proposal for some independent oversight of NTIA and federal spectrum management - a move in the right direction. Section 2(b)(6)(B)(ii) sets up a "Technical Panel" to review agency relocation plans. Section 2(b)(6)(C) provides

‘‘The Director of OMB, the Administrator of NTIA, and the Chairman of the FCC shall each appoint one member to the Technical Panel, and each such member shall be a radio engineer or technical expert not employed by, or a paid consultant to, any Federal or State governmental agency. NTIA shall adopt regulations to govern the workings of the Technical Panel after public notice and comment, subject to OMB approval, and the members of the Technical Panel shall be appointed, within 180 days of the date of enactment of the Spectrum Relocation Improvement Act of 2008."

The precedent of having an outside watchdog for federal government spectrum activities is a good counterbalance for the chummy atmosphere within the windowless IRAC meeting room.

Kudos to CTIA and Cellular Industry for Haitian Disaster Response

2010-01-15T09:55:00.004-05:00

Texting Enables Instant Philanthropy

Faithful readers are aware that this blog has been critical of the cell phone industry and its trade association, CTIA, on numerous occasions. While your blogger continues to believe that the specific criticisms of the past were well deserved, this week it is time for praise for their leadership in enabling the "instant philanthropy" that has raised at least $5,000,000 so far for earthquake relief in Haiti. (As of 5 PM, 1/14)

It appears that people are more willing to donate money if you can do it instantly without paperwork. Also the cellular carriers appear to be waiving any fees associated with such texting. It is clear that AT&T and T-Mobile are not collecting any commission off such donations. Presumably the other major carriers are also collecting commissions, but that is harder to confirm. (T-Mobile and VZW have not updated the top level of their their websites to link to this issue, possibly because of an inflexible approach to web design.)

T-Mobile is going beyond the texting/donation issue by announcing

"For current T-Mobile customers who are trying to connect with loved ones in Haiti during the aftermath of the country’s devastating earthquake, T-Mobile USA is enabling phone calls to Haiti without charges for international long distance through January 31, 2010, and retroactive to the earthquake on January 12, 2010. Additionally, T-Mobile customers who may already be in Haiti will be able to roam on T-Mobile’s partner networks in Haiti (operated locally in Haiti under the names Voila and Digicel) free-of-charge through the end of the month. In both cases, T-Mobile will remove these charges from customer bills accordingly.

T-Mobile has also taken steps to assist with the restoration of the wireless communications infrastructure in Haiti – a key component in supporting the overall humanitarian and recovery efforts. T-Mobile has pledged its support to donate wireless equipment such as generators and phones."

The Miami Herald reports that AT&T "is donating $50,000 to Telecoms Sans Frontieres, a humanitarian organization that has sent an emergency team with satellite mobile and fixed communications equipment to Haiti". (BBC page on TSF - with videos.)

So our admiration to the cell phone industry for this outstanding job in responding to the disaster in Haiti!
--------

UPDATE 1/19/10

mocoNews.Net reports that the amount raised for the Red Cross alone so far is $22M. They add,

One problem with using cellphones is that it takes awhile for the money to get from the carriers to the people in need. However, given the dire circumstances in Haiti, a handful of carriers, including Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile USA, said they will pass along the money as soon as possible.

VZW has already sent $3M and T-Mobile will forward the money this week. Both are, in effect, forwarding money they have not received in normal billing cycles.

Cost of Delay and Inaction at FCC

2010-01-14T06:16:00.000-05:00

Docket 10-4: "FCC is Finally Moving on Signal Booster Use" Urgent Communications, 1/13/10

On January 6, FCC at long last started to take action on the long standing issue of cellular "signal boosters" or bidirectional amplifiers. The current management can't be blamed too much for inaction because they inherited this mess and are at least taking action to start solving it. But there are key lessons to be learned here on both FCC procedures and the cost of inaction to many different parties.

Here are some excerpts from the public notice initiating this docket:

By this notice, we seek comment on three Petitions for Rulemaking and two Petitions for Declaratory Ruling (collectively, Petitions) regarding the proper use of signal boosters on frequencies licensed under Parts 22, 24, 27, and 90 of the Commission’s Rules.
...
On August 18, 2005, Bird Technologies, Inc. (Bird Technologies) filed a Petition for Rulemaking to amend section 90.219 to outline specific technical and operational requirements for the use of signal boosters by Part 90 licensees.
...
On November 2, 2007, CTIA, the Wireless Association (CTIA) filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling (CTIA Petition) regarding the proper use of signal boosters in Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS).
...
On September 25, 2008, Jack Daniel DBA Jack Daniel Company filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling seeking clarification of the Commission’s rules regarding signal boosters.
...
On October 23, 2009, the DAS Forum (a membership section of PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association) filed a Petition for Rulemaking in response to the CTIA Petition stating that a rulemaking proceeding is needed to address the marketing, installation, and operation of signal boosters used in the Cellular Radiotelephone and Personal Communications Services.
...
On November 3, 2009, Wilson Electronics, Inc. (“Wilson”) filed a Petition for Rulemaking asking the Commission to commence a proceeding to amend Part 20 of its rules to establish standards for the certification of signal boosters for subscriber use on CMRS networks by developing equipment certification requirements to ensure boosters are available to the public.

So FCC has a series of petition on a technical wireless issue going back almost 5 years. None of these have been on public notice or were even publicly disclosed by FCC. Indeed, there was little indication other than press coverage that this issue existed. While the CTIA petition was on its website, the other petitions were nowhere to be seen. It is for this reason that your blogger has urged FCC to publish lists of all petitions that have been filed. Note that this suggestion is doing rather well in the voting on the FCC reboot FCC site. (Feel free to add your own vote!) Some quiet staff review time to decide whether a petition is redundant or not within the Commission's jurisdiction makes sense, but there should be weeks, not years!

We note that the NPSTC (a well respected federation of 13 public safety member organizations) 1/06 Newsletter had a lead article entitled "In-Building Coverage BDA Rule Changes Needed Today". Yet the previous FCC management was unable to act. So 2 private firms as well as CTIA and NPSTC urged Commission action years ago and nothing happened.

The recent PN says

When properly installed, these devices, which can either be fixed or mobile, can help consumers, wireless service providers, and public safety first responders by expanding the area of reliable service to unserved or weak signal areas. However, as articulated in the Petitions, improper installation and use of these devices can interfere with network operations and cause interference to a range of communication services.

This is partially correct. But the issue is not just installation. Some manufacturers' amplifiers are designed to prevent oscillations which are the dominant cause of interference to cellular systems. Wilson Electronics states in its petition that all of its amplifiers have used such a design since 2006. But because of FCC inaction this is not a universal practice. So the result of inaction on the CTIA petition has been both the continuing sale of designs that are capable of causing interference, the loss of sales to manufacturers making better (more expensive) amplifiers, and capital formation problems for new companies that seek to make noninterferring equipment. So it has been a lose/lose situation for everyone involved except those making cheap equipment capable of causing interference.

Of course, if CTIA and its membership had been more pragmatic and tried to negotiate a compromise with the amplifier manufacturers to ask FCC jointly for reasonable technical standards then this problem would be much closer to solution. So there is enough blame to go around.

But the key thing to learn here is that the 3000 pages of FCC Rules deal with a highly technical jurisdiction and that they need fine tuning on a regular basis to address problems that were not considered when they were written or new technologies that might be implicitly forbidden. This is not as exciting to the 8th Floor as other issues like broadband and broadcast ownership and content but it also needs timely attention on a continuing basis. The Commission must find a way to keep working on all parts of its jurisdiction all the time and not get sidetracked by the problem du jour. So while Docket 10-4 has now started on its way to resolution, we must find a way to prevent future logjams like this.

Reboot FCC: Initial Results of Website

2010-01-11T10:54:00.000-05:00

Suggestion Scorecard

Last week FCC opened the public version of reboot.fcc.gov including a call for suggestions in response to 47 issues. Here is the scorecard of suggestions received as of10:30 AM EST 1/11. The questions "How can the data released on FCC.gov/data be better formatted so as to be more useful to the public?" is by far the most popular. Perhaps being first in the list is a major contributor to this lead.

In any case, vox populi, vox dei, we hope you check up on the suggestions, vote on those that are there, and input your own. Oddly, using your Facebook account is the easiest way to sign in to input information or to vote. No, you can not sign in using your FCBA membership or even your FRN. That says something about the grassroot approach being used here!

Spectrum policy is too important to be left to lobbyists and lawyers!

Get involved!

2009 Regulatory Review: The Year of Rebuilding and Preparing for New initiatives

2010-01-08T13:21:00.000-05:00

Wireless Design Special Issue Published

The December 2009 issues of both Wireless Design and ECN (formerly Electronic Component News) contain the insert shown above, "A Year in Wireless".

This includes a group of articles entitled "Leading Industry Alliances Speak Out" with articles from the heads of alliances dealing with Wi-Fi, WiMAX, ZigBee, and Bluetooth as well as an article by your blogger entitled "2009 Regulatory Review: The Year of Rebuilding and Preparing for New Initiatives" (p. 11-12).

An interesting package and recommended reading.

Origins of Wi-Fi and Bluetooth

2010-01-01T10:46:00.003-05:00

May 9, 2010 will be the 25th anniversary of the FCC's adoption of the First Report and Order in Docket 81-413 - the rules that laid our the rules that became Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Zigbee, many of the cordless phones sold in the US, and a variety of niche products that enhance our lives. In the next few months we will have several posts on how this all came about and its impact on today's world.

A Dutch team based at TU Delft/Delft University of Technology has completed a book on the background of this decision and the early history of Wi-Fi focusing on the factors that stimulated innovation. (NCR's Utrecht Engineering Centre played a key role in early 802.11 standards formulation and its Vic Hayes, a coauthor of the book, was the founding chair of the group.) The book should be published later this year by Cambridge University Press.

The 2008 George Mason University "Unleashing Unlicensed" conference also has a great deal of information on why this decision came about. The paper presented by Vic Hayes and Wolter Lemstra from TU Delft is a good preview of the coming book.

A shorter history, "A brief history of Wi-Fi" was published in The Economist in 2004.

Some people think this decision was the just FCC reacting in a dilatory way to a petition from industry - adding no value and just slowing down progress through mindless regulation of technology. It wasn't. While the then Hewlett-Packard initially supported it, all other significant corporate interests at the time were against it. (The part of H-P that was involved then is now part of Agilent, not the present H-P. It was supportive and then just lost interest in the topic with a corporate refocusing.)

The FCC initiative that resulted in these rules were an internal FCC initiative that came out of Carter Administration and then Reagan Administration belief that deregulation would stimulate economic growth.

In occasional posts over the next few months we will review where this decision came from and lessons it offers for the present day.

"Looking back, it is clear that adoption of these rules was one

of the significant achievements of the Reagan FCC

- though I doubt if anyone thought so at the time."

Mark Fowler, FCC Chairman 1981-87, 4/08

A Tribute to Mrs. Viviane Reding

2009-12-28T16:32:00.001-05:00

Outgoing European Commissioner for Information Society and Media (2004-2009)

"Strong competition and a functioning single market work in the best interests of European citizens and consumers."(11/23/09)

On January 1, Viviane Reding, European Commissioner for Information Society and Media will step down as part of a reshuffle of the EC cabinet in conjunction with the implementation of the new Treaty of Lisbon which makes major changes in the structure of the European Union. It is expected that she will be appointed to a new position as Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship. (She previously had been European Commissioner for Education and Culture in 1999 - 2004.)

In the period from 2004-2009, she was, in effect, the "telecom policy czarina" of Europe. As many readers know, telecom policy in Europe functions at both the national level with the longstanding multinational CEPT as the primary forum of national regulators and at the EC level with RSPG as a multinational forum in the spectrum area. An additional complication is that CEPT has 48 members, including Russia, and the EC has 27 members. But the EC is concerned about all social and economic issues in Europe while the CEPT is more focused - tunnel vision? - on the telecom sector.

Mrs. Reding (I have never seen her referred to as "Ms. Reding") was a client of mine while I lived in Paris. I was appointed her "special advisor" in 2006 at the recommendation of Martin Cave. (The details of the arrangement we made public the next year when a member of the European Parliament was concerned about cronyism in the selection of consultants by commissioners and demanded public disclosure of all details. Unfortunately they did not publish the miserly per diem I was paid to stay in Brussels to talk with her and her staff. However, I did get a first class Thalys train ticket between Paris and Brussels for the trip that gave me free coffee for the 90 minute ride.)

"This is why (EC) President Barroso and I have proposed a 'Digital Agenda for Europe' to make sure that Europe focuses on:

* the industries and applications that have the potential to lift Europe's performance and
* the prominent place and role of consumers in this new environment".(11/12/09)

What really impressed me about dealing with her and her staff was the focus on helping the whole European economy and society develop, not focusing on the telecom industry in isolation and certainly not focusing on the major telecom operators and manufacturers as most national telecom regulators do. Sometimes her strong pro-EU policies irritated the US, such as her backing for Galileo as a alternative to GPS and using EU funding for a European Google search engine alternative. But such "nationalism" was quite popular in Europe and I could see some logic for it. Her office also funded a lot of telecom R&D with joint projects with universities and private firms and at time I wondered about the WPA aspects of this. But her continued focus on both the European economy and European society made her a much more insightful telecom policy maker than FCC and its national counterparts in almost every country. Telecom policy need not be focused primarily on carriers, broadcasters, and manufacturers. Telecom is a key infrastructure for economies and societies.

"ICT also contributes macro-economically to productivity growth and
increased competitiveness of the European economy as a whole,
and thus is a factor in growth and job creation." -- COM(2006) 334

I hope FCC and other regulators learn from her legacy.

European Telecoms and Media Commissioner Viviane Reding delivering the 2009 Ludwig Erhard lecture at the Lisbon Council in Brussels.

Will Free Wi-Fi Become the Norm?

2009-12-25T12:04:00.002-05:00

Larry Magid of CBS News and the San Jose Mercury News had an interesting post on CBS News this week about the future role of Wi-Fi. Of course, if would be a nice holiday present to all if it widely became free in public places. It was stimulated in part by McDonald's announcement of free Wi-Fi starting in January.

I also note that AT&T Mobility CEO Ralph de la Vega has said that it will try to ease the load on its network overburdened by the success of iPhone, and perhaps somewhat underbuilt/underprovisioned, and to offload the carrier's cellular traffic to Wi-Fi hotspots and femtocells.

So as we approach the 25th anniversary next year of the Docket 81-413 rulemaking that brought forth Wi-Fi (and Bluetooth) over the opposition of most mainstream players at the time, who knows how big its long term role may be?

UPDATE

Wired: Ford is making its cars into mobile Wi-Fi hot spots.

Multiplex DTV European Style

2009-12-22T12:15:00.000-05:00

A Primer on an Alternative Path for DTV

Readers may recall that your blogger started his consulting business in Paris after retiring from FCC. Thus events and policies in Europe are of more interest to him than to many on this side of the pond.

The FCC 12/2/09 public notice on "Data Sought on Uses of Spectrum" raised the following issue,

"There may be opportunities for broadcasters to share 6 MHz channels in a market without significantly disrupting the free over-the-air television service that consumers enjoy today."

While this might seem like a strange concept, the chart at the top of this page shows it is reality in Europe. The purpose of this post is to summarize and give links to additional data on the European situation in order to stimulate discussion in the US spectrum community.

DTV developed first in the US while the original concept of analog HDTV developed in Japan. As in many cases, the early adopter had fewer options than the later adopters and the US ATSC group selected 19 Mb/s 8-VSB as the over-the air transmission standard. The Europeans later chose the DVB-T standard. DVB-T is an OFDM standard somewhat related to both WiMAX and LTE.

(8-VSB uses a high speed 6 MHz signal with 11 million broadband signals/s so each group of bits is sent sequentially. OFDM divides the TV channel into many parallel smaller channels and then send the binary data in parallel over the parallel channels. In a perfect world they would be similar in performance, but the real world has propagation problems that have to be corrected at the receiver and they have different approaches to correcting such problems. An added complication is that European TV channels are 8 MHz wide.)

A senior staffer at the FCC's UK counterpart, Ofcom, has provided the following factual summary of the UK use of multiplexes to carry several video and audio streams on one DTV signal. "DTT" is used in UK-speak for "digital terrestrial TV" ). Ofcom has no position on this US domestic issue:

The DTT platform in the UK comprises six multiplexes. The BBC and Arqiva Ltd. each operate two multiplexes, and the remaining multiplexes are operated by Digital 3&4 (carrying services from ITV, Channel 4 and Teletext Ltd.) and SDN Ltd. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of ITV plc.) respectively.

Information on the programme services carried on each multiplex is available at www.dmol.co.uk: DMOL manages common technical aspects of the DTT platform, and is made up of representatives of the four multiplex operators. The composition of the multiplexes is slightly different in those areas of the UK which have been through digital switchover (DSO), and listings for the pre-DSO and post-DSO configurations are provided on DMOL’s site. Each DVB-T multiplex carries between four and nine individual standard definition video streams.

In September this year, the BBC’s second multiplex, multiplex B, was cleared of its standard definition services in those areas which had been through DSO, and will be converted to operate as a DVB-T2 multiplex as DSO progresses across the UK. The DVB-T2 multiplex will also be broadcast on temporary frequencies as a ‘seventh’ multiplex from five of the UK’s major TV transmitters (these transmitters do not switch over until later in the regional DSO sequence, but serve significant populations). We expect that multiplex B will have capacity for up to four HD services (three services at launch).

The BBC has announced a schedule for launching the DVB-T2 multiplex, including ‘retrofit’ launches at transmitters which have already been through switchover, and the ‘early launch’ sites using temporary frequencies. The schedule is available at www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2009/11_november/16/freeview.shtml.

More information on the multiplex reorganisation and capacity allocation process for HD services on DTT is available on our website at www.ofcom.org.uk/radiocomms/digital/hd_on_dtt.’

A senior source at Arqiva recommends Chapter 4 and 8 of Ofcoms's "The Future of Digital Terrestrial Television - Enabling new services for viewers" 2007 consultation (NOI) as a good summary of present and future plans for DTV in the UK.

Note that the UK has started an evolution from DVB-T to DVB-T2 as the modulation of DTV/DTT multiplexes. DVB-T2 can deliver 40.2 Mb/s in an 8 MHz channel to fixed receivers. (Delivery to mobile receivers is less efficient since extra coding/error control is needed.) DVB-T operates 18 or 24 Mb/s at present in the UK, although they all will become 24 Mb/s when the DTV switchover is finished. DVB-T2, though now operate in the UK at 40.2 Mb/s. Original DVB-T receivers can not receive information from DVB-T2 transmissions. (Most of the cost of higher end DTV receivers is not in the receiver electronics, but in the display. So an external receiver with an interface such as HDMI could add upgraded performance to existing TV sets.)

A parallel issue to channel modulation is digital coding. ATSC started with MPEG-2 picture coding, but now supports H.264/MPEG-4 AVC. Europe is actively pursuing MPEG-4 to increase the capacity of existing multiplexes.

The Ofcom Future of DTT report, cited above, says (p. 5-6)

An improved video and audio coding compression standard called MPEG-4. This is expected (over time) to operate at up to double the efficiency of the coding standard that is used at the moment on DTT, MPEG-2. This means that a DTT multiplex could carry up to twice as many services using MPEG-4 as can currently be achieved using MPEG-2, whilst maintaining similar picture quality.

A new transmission standard, known as DVB-T2. This is expected to deliver an increase of at least 30% in the capacity of a DTT multiplex over the current standard, whilst maintaining the same coverage. This standard is a development of the existing DVB-T standard used in the UK since 1998. DVB-T2 is still undergoing development by DVB5 in Geneva, but is expected to be finalised in spring 2008.

It is important to note that MPEG-4 and DVB-T2 differ in one important respect. MPEG-4 can be introduced within a multiplex (so it can offer a mix of services coded in MPEG-2 and MPEG-4). But the introduction of DVB-T2 requires a whole multiplex to be converted from DVB-T. This is, of course, a larger step-change.

The introduction of these two technologies could, if combined, increase the capacity of a multiplex by up to 160%. This is a very large increase. It is the equivalent of raising the number of Standard Definition (SD) services that can be carried on a DTT multiplex from around eight currently to around 13-15 at DSO, and over 20 in the longer term. HD is generally regarded as unfeasible on DTT in the UK without use of MPEG-4: but with the use of these two technologies combined, a single DTT multiplex could in time offer at least four HD services. (Emphasis added)

While Europe is using MPEG-4 with DVB-T and DVB-T2 transmissions, it is also usable with the ATSC 8-VSB technology to get more video waveforms/TV channel.

It isn't that far away!

NYT's David Pogue Takes on VZW

2009-12-21T15:33:00.005-05:00

I always find David's writing on new technology both informative and humorous.

But he has taken an interesting position in the telecom policy area by locking horns with Verizon Wireless.

As he says in today's NY Times,

A few weeks ago, I wrote about two particularly nasty Verizon Wireless practices. First, Verizon doubled the early-cancellation fee for smartphones, the price you pay for canceling before your two-year contract is up (it’s now $350).

Second, I passed along a note from a Verizon whistleblower who identified a really outrageous Verizon profit center: if you accidentally hit one of the arrow keys on your Verizon cellphone (which come premapped to various Verizon Internet functions), you’re charged $2 instantaneously, even if you cancel instantly. (Verizon confirms that on many models, you can’t remap those buttons to other functions even if you’re tech-savvy enough to try.)

VZW has finally responded, after requesting a delay, and he calls their response "outrageous". So read for yourself and see what you think of the VZW response to this matter.

Pogue ends with this line,

"In short, the headline for this entire episode might as well be:

'Verizon to FCC and Customers: Go Soak Your Heads.' "

An odd PR move from a cellular company that is pressing FCC to reallocate 800 MHz!
=====
A Pogue Video with links to others:

Updates

A reader pointed out the original link above was actually to an unrelated VZ FCC filing. I pointed this out to David and he quickly corrected the link, which has been changed above.
=========

Comm. Clyburn's 12/23/09 Statement on VZW Letter
An excerpt:

"I am concerned about what appears to be a shifting and tenuous rationale for ETFs. No longer is the claim that ETFs are tied solely to the true cost of the wireless device; rather, they are now also used to foot the bill for ‘advertising costs, commissions for sales personnel, and store costs.’ Consumers already pay high monthly fees for voice and data designed to cover the costs of doing business. So when they are assessed excessive penalties, especially when they are near the end of their contract term, it is hard for me to believe that the public interest is being well served.

I am also alarmed by the fact that many consumers have been charged phantom fees for inadvertently pressing a key on their phones thereby launching Verizon Wireless’s mobile Internet service. The company asserted in its response to the Bureau that it ‘does not charge users when the browser is launched,’ but recent press reports and consumer complaints strongly suggest otherwise."

Business Week/Bloomberg coverage
Huffington Post coverage
ars technica coverage

FCC Hiring Associate Managing Director New Media None Too Soon

2009-12-20T15:07:00.000-05:00

The above job posting, DEU-OMD-2010-0008, can be found on the FCC website. The job description reads

"As the Associate Managing Director New Media, the incumbent is charged with managing the Agency's new media efforts including responsibility for the Commission's web design, information and data architecture, data transparency and search operations. Advises the Managing Director and Chairman and Commissioners, on matters pertaining to new media issues. The work involves identifying, planning, designing and recommending actions that will contribute to changing the existing systems and technologies into integrated enterprise systems that support the Commission's strategic goals and policies. Oversees and leads the revitalizing and re-tooling of web and search services to increase participation and communications through the Agency's web site and other network services. Manages a team of data and web application developers in the execution of this effort. Initiates and/or is apprised of all FCC's data transparency and web system architecture projects and assignments and advises the Managing Director on matters of major concern. Coordinates routing matters and projects among the New Media and Technology staff where such coordination is required and in the day-to-day relationships acts for with the full confidence of the Managing Director. Formulates, develops and implements policies, standards, criteria and guidelines for the implementation of online media initiatives; and defends the Agency's position on key/critical policy initiatives and issues. Formulates, develops, recommends and implements long-range strategic plans for the evolution of the Agency's overall web design, information transparency, and open data initiatives. Plans, manages and conducts comprehensive risk analysis and assessments of critical systems operations, to identify and quantify threats to the integrity and security of sensitive new media technology resources. Conducts continuous evaluations of the Commission's business needs by ensuring that the Agency can use the internet and other new media tools to broaden and strengthen the Agency's reach and presence. Represents the Agency in conferences, planning and briefing sessions, etc., relative to plans and policies affecting new media technology." (Emphasis added)

Of course, it is almost impossible to read on the website itself because the text keep rolling on and on without a return (viewed in both Firefox and Google Chrome). Thus new leadership for the website part of the FCC is desperately needed. Note also who several fonts are used on this page without any particular logic. Note the special instructions for "ICTAP eligible candidates" without any indication what that refers to.

Finally, since you have gotten this far on the web site, note that there are no vacancies listed for any entry level employees, engineers or otherwise. This no doubt means that FCC has yet to start any college campus recruiting. This is not the first time I have written about recruiting at FCC.

FCC's ambivalence about recruiting top new graduates probably comes from budget watchers who don't want to do any recruiting until they know exactly what the new appropriation is. Budget wonks: FCC has been around since 1934, its predecessors even earlier. It will be here next year and for the next 10 years. How many entry level engineers will it need? I don't know. But it will certainly need at least 5 this year and possibly 10-20. The personnel mess at FCC and many other federal agencies with an unbalanced age distribution, did not happen by accident. It results from odd staffing decisions during the Reagan years when year after year hiring was deferred. We are now seeing the inevitable consequences of not hiring then.

I was in the Air Force at the end of the Viet Nam War. I was puzzled why the military was "hiring" lieutenants and privates while it was RIFing all sorts of other people. A wise colonel explained that the only way to keep the long term personnel pool balanced is to continually have entry level hiring at some level. FCC needs to learn that also.

House Hearing on the Radio Spectrum Inventory Act and Spectrum Relocation Improvement Act

2009-12-16T10:46:00.001-05:00

On Tuesday, December 15, 2009 the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet held a legislative hearing on H.R. 3125, the Radio Spectrum Inventory Act, and H.R. 3019, the Spectrum Relocation Improvement Act of 2009.

The witnesses were:

Michael Calabrese, Vice President and Director, Wireless Future Program, New America Foundation
Dale Hatfield, Adjunct Professor, Interdisciplinary Telecommunications Program, University of Colorado at Boulder
Ray O. Johnson, Ph.D., Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, Lockheed Martin Corporation
The Honorable Steve Largent, President and CEO, CTIA - The Wireless Association
The Honorable Gordon H. Smith, President and CEO, National Association of Broadcasters
Thomas Stroup, Chief Executive Officer, Shared Spectrum Company

Their prepared statements , along with with Chairman Waxman's initial statement, are on the website of the parent House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

New America's Michael Calabrese, a client of your blogger from time to time, was kind enough to cite several times "New Approaches to Private Sector Sharing of Federal Government Spectrum", a report he commissioned that showed that spectrum sharing of federal spectrum would be much more effective for all parties involved if future federal systems were designed with sharing in mind and preemption for emergencies.

My former boss, Dale Hatfield, pointed out that "there are combinations of newer management techniques and technological advances that can go a long way toward alleviating the shortage in spectrum capacity."

Lockheed Martin's Ray Johnson apparently was the front man for the Pentagon at this hearing. He was also a big cheerleader for the "military industrial complex:

"According to the Aerospace Industries Association, the aerospace and defense sector was the largest net positive contributor to the US balance of trade, logging a $57 Billion surplus in 2008, with U.S. military aircraft representing a $54.7 Billon export market; and, in 2007, U.S. defense exports alone constituted a $25 billion market."

He also raised concerns about

"potential inadvertent message to our allies in the international community, given the scope of the frequencies being inventoried and the provision requiring recommendations for reallocation. The Department of Defense and the defense industry have worked hard to promote, achieve, and maintain international spectrum harmonization to support allied interoperability of equipment, technologies, and capabilities."

For example, perhaps we should keep 225-400 MHz, 175 MHz of beachfront spectrum underutilized in the USA in urban areas where spectrum is in short supply, at low utilization in the future so that we can show our allies how important this spectrum is? Wouldn't a responsible sharing system with civil users that allows the military immediate preemption send a better message? When does the Federal Government get the money from to pay the Pentagon and its contractors like Lockheed Martin?

Isn't it from skimming off 4-6 % of GDP? Since the lesson of the past 8 years is that politicians and the voters want both "guns and butter", the 4-6% number is not going to change so the only way to increase military spending is to grow the GDP - which is what happens with more effective civil communications. It not only enriches CTIA members and equipment manufacturers, it makes other businesses more efficient and enables whole new businesses that are users of new services. (Think Amazon and Netflix.)

NAB President Gordon Smith's presence was continuing proof that the broadcasters have great political influence and can demand a seat at the table whenever they want - even if they have nothing germane to say. Smith praised his community "innovation and efficiency drive broadcast operations". His key point was "We believe that broadcast operations and the expansion of broadband availability and adoption are by no means mutually exclusive." That is, leave our spectrum alone is finding spectrum for the CTIA crowd and kill the FCC PN on "Use of Spectrum".

On this topic of inventory, there is a lively discussion going on now in the Linkedin's Spectrum Experts group (I am a member but I did not select this name). Here is a recent contribution from Saul Friedner of UK's Mott MacDonald consulting group, reprinted with his kind permission:

"Sorry to intrude in what is a totally national matter for the US but I thought it might be helpful to make you aware, if you're not already, of the work that has been going on in the UK. The Ministry of Defence has been engaged in a Spectrum Reform Programme which has included an Audit of public sector spectrum holdings. This reform programme has identified surplus spectrum which could potentially be released to market that will cover what is called AIP (Administered Incentive Pricing) or charges levied by the Treasury on unused public spectrum.

Much of this work was initiated by the Treasury and supported by other Government Departments a lot of the work and output can be found at www.spectrumaudit.org.uk

Ofcom the UK regulator also plays a vital part in this Programme to facilitate the technical and regulatory aspects and much of the work can be found on their web site www.ofcom.org.uk

I appreciate the framework for spectrum management in the US is different to the UK and Europe but de-regulation of spectrum is on the agenda of many Governments. A push to shake up public sector use of spectrum is a growing concern as demand continues to grow for services. The balance breaks down only when the two sides cannot agree a common ground.

I would like to comment further that any Audit or Inventory to be done should be conducted in stages and prioritised this way two outcomes could emerge:
1) Spectrum becomes available in the most efficient way
2) The spectrum identified as 'potentially difficult' to allocate or assign i.e. adjacent to military/public safety bands become the first barrier to overcome, therefore becoming easier as the inventory develops."

FCC Alums in Germany Write About Novel Spectrum Policy Alternatives

2009-12-15T17:03:00.000-05:00

Two of my former FCC colleagues, Ken Carter and Scott Marcus (not a relative) have worked in WIK [Wissenschaftliches Institut für Kommunikationsdienste /Scientific Institute for Communication Services], "Germany’s leading research and advisory institute for communication service", for several years. They have collaborated with two others on the new report pictured at left entitled "Next Generation Spectrum Regulation for Europe: Price-Guided Radio Policy".

Here is a summary of the paper:

This project examines how market signals in the form of pricing information can be introduced into spectrum management in order to optimally guide not only assignment, but also determinations concerning type of use, emissions characteristics and exclusivity. We construct a mathematical model to illuminate how one possible implementation of such price-guided policy might function to make these determinations. For the past nearly two decades, spectrum management authorities have used market mechanisms such as auctions to determine spectrum assignment in an effort to ensure that the right to utilize the spectrum is held by those who value it most. As compared to conventional spectrum auctions, price-guided mechanisms for determining allocation and policy would arrive at an assignment of spectrum rights to the highest value users as well as ensure that the contours of those rights were the most efficient possible.

In the mathematical model presented in this paper, participants in a hypothetical auction are free to express their demand for spectrum licences which are different on several dimensions such as permissible power output and bandwidth. These demands are dic- tated by what is necessary to satisfy a specified a pre-specified level data rate using wireless communications ability. We use the Shannon-Hartley Theorem to model the possible tradeoffs between permissible signal strength and allotted channel bandwidths. As a proof of concept of the mathematical model, we created a simplified MS Excel- based version of the model. The model’s output was also a mix of high and low power users, at various channel bandwidths and winning bids. We also review the implications of German Law and EU for such price-guided policy. Price-guided spectrum policy is viable in Europe. However, price-guided policies cannot be used to determine allocations and assignments in internationally harmonised bands. The most actionable initial implementations include determinations of maximum power limits, bandwidth, duration of rights and channelisation. Other early potential implementations include boundary interference standards and possibly congestion-based protocols.

Price-guided policy holds substantial promise because it encourages allocative effi- ciency of spectrum due to the fact that bidders can acquire exactly the set of spectrum rights they need. Further, price-guided policy mitigates the allocation errors inherent in administrative determinations.

While I disagree with the degree they think "tragedy of the commons" is inevitable with respect to spectrum use, I think this is a promising approach to stimulate technical innovation in radio technology through deregulation. It is odd that it comes from Germany which has a reputation as being the most rigid country with respect to "command and control" spectrum management.

So don't count on these ideas being implemented in Europe too soon, although the UK regulator, Ofcom, is both open minded and the the geographic convenience to be able to try new ideas without having land borders except with Ireland.

2009-12-12T12:33:00.001-05:00

After the

Spectrum Inventory ...

The legislation for a spectrum inventory is gaining momentum and hearings will be held shortly. This week I sent a paper to the NTIA Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee on what is likely to happen after the spectrum inventory is completed. My prediction: gridlock.

Let us take the example of the technical issues in the AWS-3/M2Z controversy. Everyone agrees that the band has no primary occupants in it anywhere in the US. The key technical controversy that has dragged on for 3+ years is how the band can be used without impacting the incumbents in the lower adjacent band - mainly T-Mobile. This, in turn revolves on what constitutes "harmful interference" and to a lesser degree on what receiver immunity is reasonable before an adjacent channel users can complain of interference. So if this is the mess we get with a completely vacant band, imagine the mess we will get with bands that have use in some areas but not others and have intermittent users.

I propose that we decrease this controversy by having NTIA and FCC work in parallel with the inventory to improve the definition of harmful interference, develop improved transparent procedures for making harmful interference determinations in a timely way, and clarify receiver expectations.

Otherwise the inventory will likely be, in the words of the Bard of Avon:

... a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

2009-12-10T16:06:00.003-05:00

Other Publications Chime in

on Recent Topics

This week, two other, larger publications have discussed recent topics you read about in SpectrumTalk . (Oddly, Broadcasting & Cable remains silent on the 12/2/09 FCC Public Notice on use of broadcast spectrum.)

The Wall Street Journal had an oped yesterday entitled "The Rabbit-Ear Wars" by Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. It begins,

"You stupidly built a drive-in theater in the desert just as your customers were all deciding to stay home and watch HBO. Fortunately, the theater turns out to be sitting on a mountain of oil.

With a few asterisks, such is the situation of old-style TV broadcasters, whose viewers have fled to cable or satellite but whose spectrum is lusted after by the wireless industry. According to a much-noted study sponsored by the Consumer Electronics Association, in the hands of the broadcasters, that spectrum is worth a mere $12 billion. In the hands of mobile phone carriers struggling to meet explosive growth for mobile broadband, it would be worth $62 billion."

Jenkins describes the basic situation, but goes on to say,

"But the FCC is in no position to know whether mobile broadband is that higher and better use. A reason is the regulatory straitjacket, including ownership limits, that for decades has prevented license holders themselves from exploring new broadcast business models."

At the expense of sounding like a schill for for FCC's Evan Kwerel, let me remind reads that Evan wrote about this with John Williams in 2002's OPP Working Paper 38. They proposed

"to facilitate the rapid transition from administrative allocation of spectrum to market allocation, this paper proposes that the FCC (1) reallocate restricted spectrum to flexible use; (2) conduct large-scale, two-sided auctions of spectrum voluntarily offered by incumbents together with any unassigned spectrum held by the FCC, and (3) provide incumbents with incentives to participate in such “band restructuring” auctions by immediately granting participants flexibility and allowing them to keep the proceeds from the sale of their spectrum."

In other words a real deregulatory approach in which NAB and MSTV members could decide for themselves what the highest use of their spectrum is and how to maximum the value of their spectrum resource.

Next, the somewhat more obscure CED magazine, "The Premier Magazine of Broadband Technology", published an article by FCC alum Jeff Krauss entitled "Jamming Cell Phone Signals". Jeff does a balanced job explaining the pros and cons of the prison cell phone jamming issue and the pending legislation and petition at FCC. He ends with this observation,

"So here we are again. The FCC hates to make a decision when there are opponents with strong views and strong arguments. And whenever an entity with strong lobbying ties to the FCC exerts pressure, the FCC takes the path of least resistance: delay."

=======

UPDATE 12/11/09

Having got its marching orders from NAB, Broadcasting & Cable is now talking about the spectrum proposal:

NAB: Use Airwaves To Fight Potential Spectrum Grab

"According to a copy obtained by B&C of the e-mail from Smith and the chairs of the Spectrum Commitee and TV board, NAB has produced a 30-second TV spot to "help position the spectrum issue in a pro-broadcaster, pro-consumer light" as a response to TV spots by wireless and telco groups "attempting to position a national broadband plan as having no potential drawbacks." "

2009-12-09T08:28:00.003-05:00

Who Reads SpectrumTalk?

It has been about a year since we started tracking the location of our readers using the free services of ClustrMaps . About is a map of where viewers have been coming from.

US readers are concentrated on the East Coast, but there are several 1000+ points west of the Mississippi.

At left is the tabular data for the top 30 countries. I guess my friends in Japan must be regular readers because of the 81 hits from there. The relative high rank of the Cayman Islands is surprising. Either a lot of people are taking breaks from beach vacations or the offshore bankers there are looking for this material.

In any, thank you faithful readers and best wishes for the Holiday Season!
=========

UPDATE

Cayman Islands Mystery Solved!
(It's the local "FCC")

2009-12-07T07:55:00.005-05:00

Unintended Consequences: NY Times on History of Cellular Driving Safety Issue

Yesterday's NY Times has an article on "who knew what when" on the issue of cellular/texting use while driving. It starts with this anecdote:

"Martin Cooper, who developed the first portable cellphone, recalled testifying before a Michigan state commission about the risks of talking on a phone while driving.

Common sense, said Mr. Cooper, a Motorola engineer, dictated that drivers keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel.

Commission members asked Mr. Cooper what could be done about risks posed by these early mobile phones.

'There should be a lock on the dial,” he said he had testified, “so that you couldn’t dial while driving.'

It was the early 1960s"

The article also quotes Bob Lucky, one of Bell Labs' superstars and founding chairman of the FCC's Technological Advisory Council (TAC):

Other early innovators of cellphones said they felt nagging concerns. Bob Lucky, an executive director at Bell Labs from 1982-92, said he knew that drivers talking on cellphones were not focused fully on the road. But he did not think much about it or discuss it and supposed others did not, either, given the industry’s booming fortunes.

“If you’re an engineer, you don’t want to outlaw the great technology you’ve been working on,” said Mr. Lucky, now 73. “If you’re a marketing person, you don’t want to outlaw the thing you’ve been trying to sell. If you’re a C.E.O., you don’t want to outlaw the thing that’s been making a lot of money.

What seems to be lost here is that early cell phones were bulky systems that were only used in cars and lunchbox sized units. Thus the inevitable marketing focus was on car use. Only with new semiconductor technology, a spinoff of DoD research, did handheld and pocket cell phones become a reality.

==========

UPDATE

The NY Times seems to have problems with the cell phone industry. On December 12, they followed up on the above article with an editorial entitled "Turn Car On; Turn Phone Off":

Like drivers chattering on their mobile phones, the cellphone industry was for years too distracted — by rising profits — to see the dangers ahead. As Matt Richtel wrote in The Times last week, the mobile phone industry promoted the glamour and convenience of “car phones” for years while failing to heed warnings that driving and phoning can be a deadly mix.

One ad from 1984 shows a bigwig driver on the phone and tellingly asks, “Can your secretary take dictation at 55 m.p.h.?”

A great measure of responsibility for safety lies with drivers. But now, as study after study shows the hazards of talking on the phone, or especially texting, while driving, it is time to ask why the wireless phone industry fought controls for so long on a product that could be used so dangerously.

It brings to mind that row of tobacco company executives who swore to a Congressional subcommittee 15 years ago that their products were not addictive. Or the car companies that went on making hefty S.U.V.’s that had a record of rolling over.

The reasons the cellphone industry representatives have given to block bans on phone use while driving sound straight out of the “Thank You for Smoking” playbook. One refrain was that the evidence was not settled, an assertion that continued as the industry itself was beginning to warn drivers about driving while phoning.
In California, the mobile industry fought off bans on talking while driving for years, at one point arguing that they were looking out for consumers. Consumers want to use their cellphones, that is true, but most who drive would also prefer to make it to their destinations. And distracted drivers put everyone else on the road at risk.

Even though the police are too seldom required to determine whether cellphone use was involved in an accident, the data about texting or phoning while driving is alarming. Harvard researchers estimated that drivers on cellphones cause about 2,600 fatal crashes a year and 570,000 accidents. Hands-free devices do not eliminate that risk. Other studies show that someone legally drunk could outperform a person texting behind the wheel.

Congress has slowly begun to focus on this issue and proposals for bans are now circulating in both houses, some with support of the cellphone industry. None of them are terribly high on Washington’s agenda, however. It is time for Congress and the wireless phone industry to take highway safety a step beyond seat belts and air bags.

2009-12-05T15:14:00.001-05:00

Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker

Speaks on

Spectrum Policy

On December 3, Comm. Baker gave a speech entitled "A Spectrum Management Framework" to The Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies 2009 Annual U.S. Telecoms Symposium. As far as I am aware, this was the first speech this year by a commissioner to basic spectrum policy issues. Comm. Baker is particularly well qualified in this area as a past head of NTIA.

Her key points were :

"1. An up-to-date, strategic spectrum management framework that includes achievable and clear short and longer term goals. A transparent plan will provide a predictable flow of spectrum resources to broadband providers to allow for planning by both existing providers and new entrants, as well as more flexible use of existing allocations.

2. Economic and regulatory policies to facilitate investment in mobile broadband networks—including deploying 4G networks and enhancing 3G infrastructures. These policies need to support the continued success of the competitive wireless market, but not to the exclusion of entrepreneurs and new entrants. We also need to align the incentives to deploy wireless services to unserved and underserved areas.

3. A policy plan to actively promote innovation, including cutting edge research and development in areas that will help increase the efficiency of spectrum use. Mobile broadband would not exist today without basic research conducted years ago and relentless applied research and development. We cannot expect to benefit from the types of advances that took us from brick phones to smartphones without a comprehensive commitment to world-class research and development in the area of mobile technologies—here in the United States. This could include enhanced collaboration with
technical advisors and other spectrum experts and the adoption of policies that foster further innovation."

Let me focus on the 3rd point, "A policy plan to actively promote innovation, including cutting edge research and development in areas that will help increase the efficiency of spectrum use." The free enterprise system has done amazingly well in this country in bringing us the benefits of the information society. Wireless innovation lags innovation in other areas because of government regulation of spectrum which is needed in some degree because of the limited nature of the spectrum resource and the potential for interference. (My Mac doesn't interfere with your PC so there is no need for government to get involved in computer technology regulation. Nor is there a finite amount of semiconductors available for computers.)

The key policy challenge for FCC and NTIA is how to craft spectrum policy to encourage private capital formation for R&D. (Since many new innovations raise questions of interference to federal users and NTIA has effective veto power over FCC actions in such areas, NTIA is also a key player here.) Such policy should deal fairly with both existing manufacturers and operators and entrepreneurial ones. (Remember not that long ago both Microsoft and Qualcomm were startups!) The current spectrum policy deliberations are so drawn out and complex that capital formation is certainly inhibited. Whether you agree with M2Z's business model or not, should it really take 3+ years to resolve whether TDD can be used in AWS-3?

She fully supports the spectrum inventory concept

"One critical tool government and industry needs is a spectrum inventory to better understand how spectrum is being used today across all bands. Such an inventory should be dynamic and focused on data that will inform and facilitate additional spectrum use. The output should be a user-friendly resource for all interested parties and should be able to be incorporated into more sophisticated spectrum management tools. Such an inventory will be critical to government efforts to manage spectrum more effectively as well as spectrum users trying to find fallow spectrum that can be transformed into greater connectivity and new services."

I support it also. But I recognize that without some progress on clarifying "harmful interference" and speeding adjudications of "harmful interference" the spectrum inventory will be a waste of time and resources. Why? Going back to the AWS-3 case, everyone agrees that 2155-2175 is empty of other primary users. But there is huge disagreement on what use of this band is acceptable without causing "harmful interference" to the lower adjacent incumbents. This is a pattern repeated many times for innovative technologies. We need a system that deals with these issues in a timely and transparent way. The Docket 09-157 NOI asked some key questions in this area (para. 34-37). It states

Spectrum allocations and access often hinge on controlling interference between new services and incumbent services, as do licensing and service rules to some extent. The resolution of disputes about potential or actual interference in rulemakings can pose a major impediment to the introduction of new services, devices and technologies, either as a result of long delays in the establishment of service rules or the imposition of onerous and perhaps unachievable technical standards.

These "long delays" and "onerous/unachievable standards" are also key factors in inhibiting innovation. Unfortunately, few of the commenting parties so far have offered helpful improvements. In general, the "haves" are happy with the status quo and they don't realize that it will prevent the inventory from having much impact.

2009-12-03T13:57:00.004-05:00

"Comparing the benefits of spectrum used for over-the-air television broadcasting and those of spectrum used for wireless broadband services"

"It is a bit of a mystery to me why we can't explore the idea

that broadcasters might want to sell their spectrum

and that we have to close that dialogue down"- Blair Levin, FCC

Reacting surprisingly quickly to your blogger's suggestion in his comments to the Wireless Innovation Inquiry, Docket 09-157, FCC issued yesterday a public notice cryptically entitled "Data Sought on Uses of Spectrum". A key question tells what is going on here:

"What factors should the Commission consider when examining and comparing the benefits of spectrum used for over-the-air television broadcasting and those of spectrum used for wireless broadband services?"

FCC is now actually asking for the benefits of over-the-air television! What happened to the good old days when NAB, AT&T, and the "major mobile (equipment) manufacturer" controlled all aspects of FCC policy among them?

Your blogger's suggestion of September 22, 2009 (72 days ago) said:

Para. 54 (of the Spectrum Innovation NOI) seeks comment on “innovations in the use of renewable energy and other green technology to makes wireless networks more energy efficient or address other environmental concerns.” At the risk of saying the obvious, the TV broadcast band uses a large amount of electric power to transmit RF signals that are actually received by an ever decreasing number of subscribers. The main apparent need for these transmitters is to guarantee to broadcast licensees “must carry” status with CATV systems. The use of electric power and the RF occupancy appears to be mainly a byproduct of this desired endgoal that gives 90+% of the viewership of licensed TV broadcasters. While over-the- air broadcasting gives consumers access to broadcast signals at no marginal cost compared to the pricing of MVDS service, policy options exist to offer basic MVDS service as comparable cost. For example, part of fees from new users utilizing former TV spectrum could be used to finance “lifeline” MVDS service.

MSS has no objection to giving present TV broadcasters long term must carry status, but questions why this must be accompanied with the waste of electric power and squatting on spectrum to deny it to others. While it is not possible under present law to let broadcasters keep must carry status without transmitting largely “unreceived” signals, MSS urges the Commission to explore and make recommendations to Congress for giving TV broadcasters incentives to cease using large amounts of electric power and cease filling spectrum with largely unwatched signals while retaining today’s must carry rights.

No broadcaster commented directly on this point, although MSTV and NAB in joint reply comments of November 5 (28 days ago) chose to mischaracterize it - no doubt to avoid addressing the point in question. In a footnote, the giants of the broadcasting industry said

"One commenter, Marcus Spectrum Solutions LLC (“MSS”) argued that broadcasters should stop broadcasting and simply rely on cable carriage. See Comments of Marcus Spectrum Solutions LLC (“MSS”) at 10. The MSS approach ignores the public policy goals of universal broadcast service, would strand consumer and government investment in DTV reception equipment, and would deprive consumers of new services such as mobile video."

Apparently, NAB and MSTV's attempt to take this issue off the field of consideration has backfired. The PN has questions like

3. What would be the impact to the U.S. economy and public welfare if the coverage of free over- the-air broadcast television was diminished to accommodate a repacking of stations to recover spectrum?

There may be opportunities for broadcasters to share 6 MHz channels in a market without significantly disrupting the free over-the-air television service that consumers enjoy today. Stations sharing channels may be able to trade capacity (in Mbps) between or among themselves. We note that the number of broadcasting stations sharing a single 6 MHz channel would affect the number and type of signals that each can broadcast.

[The last quote deals with something not widely known in the US: In the UK, most DTV TV broadcasts use shared transmitters owned and operated by a nonbroadcaster, Arqiva. These transmitters send 4 SDTV signals in 1 TV channel. UK broadcasters, e.g. US citizen Rupert Murdoch, produce programming and sell advertising, but do not have the equivalent of Part 73 licenses. FCC seems tobe asking whether this could be done here. With present technology is it not possible to multiplex several HDTV programs, particularly sports with lots of motion, on a single transmitter.]

CTIA was clearly pleased with the PN. They previously said the US faced a "spectrum crisis unless significant additional spectrum was allocated for licensed CMRS". The day of the PN, CTIA, CEA, and " more than 100 of America' most innovative companies" sent a letter to FCC saying

“Our nation's ability to lead the world in innovation and technology is threatened by the lack of sufficient spectrum available for wireless broadband applications and services. As the Chairman has said, there is a looming spectrum crisis. We applaud your candid acknowledgment of this fact and appreciate your efforts to close the spectrum gap.

“A veritable revolution is underway in which consumers and businesses rely on laptops, increasingly sophisticated smartphones, and other wireless devices to access bandwidth-intensive applications, content and services. This has led to an explosion in innovation, technological improvements, job creation, productivity and consumer welfare gains. It will also create a real strain on the nation's Internet infrastructure. Without more spectrum, America's global leadership in innovation and technology is threatened.

“The undersigned urge you to allocate more spectrum for wireless broadband as soon as possible. Please let us know how we can help.”

NAB was more restrained,

"Broadband deployment to unserved areas is a worthy goal, and broadcasters believe we can help the FCC accomplish its mission without stifling growth opportunities of free and local TV stations and the millions of viewers that we serve. We would hope policymakers would remember that after spending $15 billion upgrading to the next generation of television, broadcasters just returned to the government more than a quarter of the spectrum used for free and local TV service."

Audio recording of Progress and Freedom Foundation December 1 event on the same basic issue.

Let's Make a Deal:
Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband,
and a Market in Spectrum

A PFF Congressional Seminar

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

UPDATE

12/4/09 NY Times has an article on yet another aspect of declining use of over-the-air TV signals. It starts with an amusing anecdote of how a broadcasting mogul could not convince her own daughter to take a TV set to college because the daughter would rather use IP video:

Web-TV Divide Is Back in Focus With NBC Sale

As she prepared her daughter for college, Anne Sweeney insisted that a television be among the dorm room accessories.

“Mom, you don’t understand. I don’t need it,” her 19-year-old responded, saying she could watch whatever she wanted on her computer, at no charge.

That flustered Ms. Sweeney, who happens to be the president of the Disney-ABC Television Group.

“You’re going to have a television if I have to nail it to your wall,” she told her daughter, according to comments she made at a Reuters event this week. “You have to have one.”

But she does not, actually.

2009-12-01T07:27:00.000-05:00

Putting A Price Tag On TV Spectrum

Guest entry by Tom Hazlett
(Reprinted with permission from TV News Channel)

Hi, broadcasters. I'm an economist. Happy Thanksgiving. Let's talk turkey.

People say you're sitting on some very valuable radio spectrum. Like about $107 billion worth at March 2008 prices. And "sitting" is the inoperative word because the FCC's broadcast TV license has you frozen on those 49 channels.That's the 294 MHz of rich, fertile bandwidth that iPhone users (and the network engineers they bug most) dream about morning, noon and night. You're just running up a wretched electricity bill while the world has moved on. There's no app for that.

Indeed, if you had it to do over again, you wouldn't even use terrestrial broadcast. I know because some of you have done it over with ESPN and CNBC and FX and scores of other cable networks. That Travel Channel deal valued the network at $1 billion.

You folks could have a broadcast travel channel of your own and broadcast it on one of your digital subchannels to all 114 million TV homes. But no one is watching your off-air-only channels. Not even Aunt Minnie in Peoria, the one who was supposed to go bonkers when analog went dark last June.

That's fine. You've still got good shows. I don't need forensic experts from CSI: Hollywood to know that. You're not 100 percent of the TV market, like you were when the FCC stepped in to limit upstart cable TV systems 40 years ago on the grounds that cable would "siphon" viewers, but would never be a real competitor. (Boy, did the Washington bureaucrats blow that one) But you've still got the Super Bowl and Dancing With the Stars, and haul in $40 billion in ads every year — or you did until recently.

You don't need the TV band for that. Others like mobile broadband, smart phones and e-readers and M2M networks do. It's the coming wireless bandwidth tsunami. The carriers are starved for airspace, and you're way long in the stuff. Time for a deal.

You know that. I know that. Even the new crew at the FCC knows that. But they think that you're imbued with the "public interest" and have a spiritual attachment to terrestrial radio transmissions. I follow the money. Your greatest desire as a broadcaster is to secure cable and satellite carriage. That's business, not religion. You bought your stations from a broadcaster who also had a deep, metaphysical investment in the "public interest" and followed that shining light right all the way through escrow.

A fierce commitment to the TV allocation table of 1952 is your opening bid. You won't budge until you know three things. First, how much will you be paid to do your part? Second, how will your life change? And, third, how can you be sure that you won't get whacked by the opportunists in Congress — the ones you've been scaring all these years about any competitive threat to "free, universal, over-the-air TV" — when they catch a clue that you're prepared to sell out?

The first two questions are answered by seeing what the FCC should do. It should split the TV band into seven overlay licenses of 42 MHz each. Then auction all seven.

At the same time, it should provide a mechanism to supply the 10 million households not having a cable or satellite subscription with free broadcast video service for five or 10 years. This can be done by vouchers, as with the DTV set-top box subsidies or via a procurement auction. It won't cost more than $3 billion ($300 times 10 million), a small fraction of the spectrum auction receipts.

The overlay licenses will embed encumbrances — you. Existing stations would have the right to continue broadcasting, to relocate to another channel assignment or to go off off-air. No worries about coverage. The new spectrum owners will pay cable and satellite operators to guarantee carriage. If not, you won't vacate.

So "free" TV service remains, but the delivery platform will be technology-neutral. And you'll be part of the solution, for which you will be compensated. How does something like $30 billion spread across 1,750 full-power TV stations sound to you?

That figure simply derives from the prices paid in last year's 700 MHz auction. At $1.28 per MHz per capita, a station in New York might clear $200 million. A station in Spokane, Wash., about $8 million. Again, these are estimates. Real prices may vary.

That gets us down to your greatest fear: you lose your "public interest" veneer when you start quoting sell prices. So, don't. Just sit there. Let the FCC move forward with a smart plan like this. It's actually in the public interest to unleash new bandwidth for the services consumers most desire. And it makes the U.S. more competitive in the Global Broadband Race.

Here's the blunt end of the stick: Losing your special place is no longer much of a problem. There's just not much left in your business model. What can "public trusteeship" deliver that matches $30 billion? Or a tenth of that?

Thomas W. Hazlett is Professor of Law & Economics and serves as Director of the Information Economy Project at George Mason University School of Law. He is also a Columnist for the New Technology Policy Forum hosted by the Financial Times. Prof. Hazlett previously held faculty appointments at the University of California at Davis, Columbia University, and the Wharton School, and in 1991-92 served as Chief Economist of the Federal Communications Commission.

Prof. Hazlett has published widely in academic and popular journals on the economics of the Information Sector. He has provided expert testimony to federal and state courts, regulatory agencies, committees of Congress, foreign governments, and international organizations. His book, Public Policy Toward Cable Television, was co-authored with Matthew L. Spitzer (MIT Press, 1997).

2009-11-25T18:51:00.001-05:00

FCC Acts on CTIA

"Shot Clock" Petition

On November 18, FCC granted in part the CTIA July 11, 2008 petition on setting "shot clock"-like deadlines for local zoning reviews of cell tower zoning requests. The FCC said:

On the first issue, we conclude that we should define what constitutes a presumptively “reasonable period of time” beyond which inaction on a personal wireless service facility siting application will be deemed a “failure to act.” We then determine that in the event a State or local government fails to act within the appropriate time period, the applicant is entitled to bring an action in court under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v). At that point, the State or local government will have the opportunity to present to the court arguments to show that additional time would be reasonable, given the nature and scope of the siting application at issue. We next conclude that the record supports setting the time limits at 90 days for State and local governments to process collocation applications, and 150 days for them to process applications other than collocations. On the second issue raised by the Petition, we find that it is a violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) for a State or local government to deny a personal wireless service facility siting application solely because that service is available from another provider. On the third issue, because the Petitioner has not presented us with any evidence of a specific controversy, we deny its request that we find that a State or local regulation that explicitly or effectively requires a variance or waiver for every wireless facility siting violates Section 253(a).

CTIA had asked for limits of 45 days and 75 days, but FCC compromised on 90/150, no doubt due to pressure from local governments.

But the root cause of much of this problem is the design of most suburban cellular towers. The industry does know how to build towers that fit into their environment when forced to do so, but since the approaches they use are very expensive they generally are content to use towers that "look like they were designed by engineers". Thus the local government resistance should not be a big surprise. There is only so far that this "uglification" of suburbia can continue without a massive backlash.

In the next decade, the total requirement for suburban antennas for all wireless systems - not just CTIA members - will probably be 25 transmit/receiver systems (each equivalent to one tower level of the picture at left) per square mile. I doubt that this can be achieved with the current design concepts in suburbia with any harmony with neighbors. ( This is a uniquely suburban issue. In urban areas, it is easier to hide antennas on buildings and in rural areas there are few neighbors to complain.)

It is time for the various sectors of the wireless industry to look at the big picture and start thinking of new concepts for this type of system as the basic design concept. Note that at an FCC hearing this summer, Jake MacLeod of Bechtel also stated that we have reached the end of the line for current design concepts.

I hope that FCC will take a leadership role in this issue in bringing various industry sectors (CMRS, FWA, Part 90, Part 101) together to discuss the need for new design approaches that both provide adequate radio illumination of suburbia and are compatible with their environment.

2009-11-22T22:32:00.003-05:00

Ofcom on
TV White Space

As many readers know, Ofcom is the FCC's UK counterpart, with roughly comparable jurisdiction. It is much less politicized than FCC is and is run by what we would call a "single administrator" like EPA. As opposed to FCC where virtually all decisions have be be voted on by 5 political appointees,

"(Ofcom) is based upon a model which is familiar to the commercial sector but which marks a departure from the past.
Ofcom has a Board with a Chairman and both executive and non-executive members. The Executive runs the organisation and answers to the Board, whilst the work of both Board and Executive is informed by the contribution of a number of advisory bodies."

(As I have pointed out in my reply comments to Docket 09-157, FCC - without additional legislation - could move to this model for noncontroversial spectrum matters and probably increase its productivity significantly - but I digress.)

On November 17, Ofcom issued a "discussion document" entitled "Digital Dividend: Geolocation for Cognitive Access A discussion on using geolocation to enable licence- exempt access to the interleaved spectrum". After you translate the UK-jargon (Why can't they learn to speak English like us?) it turns out that this is basically the same issue in Docket 04-186, "TV whitespaces". Like the original FCC NPRM, Ofcom is thinking about white space devices using either geosensing or LBT (listen-before-talk) technology. FCC in its November 4, 2008 2nd R&O selected the "belt and suspenders"
approach of requiring both geosensing and LBT - further compounding the situation by basing the geosensing on a 1966 propagation model that FCC itself had already discredited for all but its original context of TV allotments.

In Ofcom's geosensing proposal they state

"Over many years broadcasters have carefully predicted the signal levels that will be received from their transmitter networks and have refined and validated these predictions. This information is held by Arqiva, which conducts the modelling on behalf of the broadcasters. There should be little difficulty in providing such signal strength information to the database. This implies that the database will not need to perform propagation modelling on behalf of DTT (digital terrestrial television - not necessarily HDTV)."
(Arqiva is the private entity in the UK that provides the TV transmitters for ITV, Channel 4, S4C and Five. UK private broadcasters generate content, they do not have the equivalent of Part 73 licenses as US broadcasters do. DTV/DTTV signals for private broadcasters are multiplexed together and transmitted from common transmitters and towers on common frequencies.)

Thus the assumed coverage of TV stations under the Ofcom proposal will be based on "validated predictions" of coverage accumulated over many years. So what does FCC require? Check out the new §15.512(a):

"TVBDs must protect digital and analog TV services within the contours shown in the following table. The contours are based on the R–6602 curves contained in §73.699" of this chapter.

These R-6602 curves were developed in the pre-desktop computer age of 1966 as a convenient way of calculating nominal coverage of TV stations, using 8 radials to consider terrain. The primitive algorithm can be seen in Figures 4 and 5 of §73.333 . (On these 8 radials only the difference between the 90 percentile altitude and the 10 percentile altitude is considered and even this is done on a rough grid appropriate for the manual calculation of the 1960s.) Note that due to the wording of §15.512(a) it is not clear if the limited terrain corrections of Figues 4 and 5 are even to be used! That is because the details for using even these primitive correction factors are in §73.684 which is never cited or incorporated by reference. FCC has warned about the limitations of this technique even when the correction factors are applied:

"Under actual conditions, the true coverage may vary from these estimates because the terrain over any specific path is expected to be different from the average terrain on which the field strength charts were based. Further, the actual extent of service will usually be less than indicated by these estimates due to interference from other stations. Because of these factors, the predicted field strength contours give no assurance of service to any specific percentage of receiver locations within the distances indicated.”

The limitations of the FCC technique are clear in the following coverage map of KTNC-TV/DT, Concord CA from the FCC's dtv.gov website. Note the nearly circular shape of the contours for both the original analog service and the new DTV service map of this station. Also shown is a terrain map of the area with a circle marking about the same spot as the official service contours. (Note the presence of a few orange dots showing people within the contour who lose coverage after the switch to DTV. Those who never had analog coverage are not shown.)

Hint -- why is it called "Napa Valley"? Do you think the wine growers of Napa Valley can get this signal from Concord CA with antennas? Anyone who has been to San Francisco will recall it is a hilly city. Yet according to the FCC coverage prediction, people on the Pacific Coast north and south of SF can get KTNC. These are the realities of the R-6602 model. It was appropriate for determining allotments prior to the computer era and it may be appropriate for "administrative certainty" to keep it for allotments today. But it is unrealististic to use it to define actual coverage of a TV signal.

So why is the UK proposing a realistic propagation-based geosensing while FCC is using "belt and suspenders" with unrealistic propagation which overprotects the few people who actually use antennas for TV reception?

2009-11-20T09:22:00.006-05:00

The Progress & Freedom Foundation
Presents

Let's Make a Deal: Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, and a Market in Spectrum

Proposals to have television broadcasters return a portion of their spectrum for re-allocation and auction for next-generation mobile broadband and data services have been met with strong reactions from broadcasters. Is re-allocation of spectrum necessary to encourage broadband expansion? Would compensation for broadcasters be adequate? Will Congress go along with such a deal, or would it be blocked as contrary to "the public interest?" These and other policy issues will be discussed at " Let's Make a Deal: Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, and a Market in Spectrum ," a Congressional Seminar hosted by The Progress & Freedom Foundation.

Speakers include FCC's Blair Levin, Coleman Bazelon of The Brattle Group, Kostas Liopiros of The Sun Fire Group David Donovan, President of the Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc., and John Hane, Counsel in the communications practice group of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP to discuss if a "grand bargain" to re-allocate spectrum is wise and if it is a feasible option to free spectrum for mobile services. Adam Thierer, President of The Progress & Freedom Foundation, will act as moderator of the event.

" Let's Make a Deal: Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, and a Market in Spectrum ," will be held Tuesday, December 1st from 9:00am to 11:00am in the Holeman Lounge, 13th Floor, at the National Press Club, 529 14th Street, NW in Washington, DC. Those interested in attending can register here. Questions should be directed to Allison Bringardner at abringardner@pff.org or 202-289-8928.

Your blogger presented a similar proposal in his comments to the Wireless Innovation Inquiry, Docket 09-157:

Para. 54 (of the NOI) seeks comment on “innovations in the use of renewable energy and other green technology to makes wireless networks more energy efficient or address other environmental concerns.” At the risk of saying the obvious, the TV broadcast band uses a large amount of electric power to transmit RF signals that are actually received by an ever decreasing number of subscribers. The main apparent need for these transmitters is to guarantee to broadcast licensees “must carry” status with CATV systems. The use of electric power and the RF occupancy appears to be mainly a byproduct of this desired endgoal that gives 90+% of the viewership of licensed TV broadcasters. While over-the- air broadcasting gives consumers access to broadcast signals at no marginal cost compared to the pricing of MVDS service, policy options exist to offer basic MVDS service as comparable cost. For example, part of fees from new users utilizing former TV spectrum could be used to finance “lifeline” MVDS service.

MSS has no objection to giving present TV broadcasters long term must carry status, but questions why this must be accompanied with the waste of electric power and squatting on spectrum to deny it to others. While it is not possible under present law to let broadcasters keep must carry status without transmitting largely “unreceived” signals, MSS urges the Commission to explore and make recommendations to Congress for giving TV broadcasters incentives to cease using large amounts of electric power and cease filling spectrum with largely unwatched signals while retaining today’s must carry rights.

No broadcaster commented directly on this point, although MSTV and NAB in joint reply comments chose to mischaracterize it - no doubt to avoid addressing the point in question. Thus it is interesting to see that MSTV's president will be present at the PFF forum.

=====

UPDATE

Transcript of event

2009-11-18T16:52:00.004-05:00

FCC Tackles Cell Phone Use/Texting While Driving

No doubt reacting to my July posting, FCC has taken several actions recently to look into the controversial issue of traffic safety aspects of cell phone use. The previous management of FCC showed no interest in this topic.

Recent MBTA (Boston subway) accident that injured 49 people and
was caused by the operator texting while driving!

On November 20, there will be a staff workshop on "distracted driving". This will "explore technology innovations and applications that may eliminate or significantly reduce the problem of distracted driving as well as ways to educate the public about such dangerous behavior."

On November 4, FCC announced a "a joint effort (with DOT) to evaluate technologies that may help curb the dangerous epidemic of distracted driving." The announcement went on to say

The DOT-FCC partnership will also include outreach efforts to educate the public about the dangers of texting while driving, talking on cell phones while driving, and other distracting behavior that can lead to deadly accidents.

"We must put an end to distracted driving, which is costing lives and inflicting injuries across the nation's roads and railways," Secretary LaHood told the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection. "I look forward to working with Chairman Genachowski and ensuring that FCC's and DOT's technology experts can join forces on this critical issue."

Chairman Genachowski said, “I welcome this collaborative effort to eliminate the increasingly deadly practice of distracted driving. Changing this ingrained behavior will require us to develop creative solutions using both technology and education. By combining the resources and expertise of the DOT and the FCC, I am confident that we can have a major impact on this problem.”

2009-11-13T14:13:00.002-05:00

FCC's Changing Its Image

Lots of news media have reported the appointment of Yul Kwon as Deputy Chief of the FCC's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau. He is third from left in the above photo from Survivor: Cook Islands which he won. However, his Wikipedia bio makes a convincing case that he is well qualified for this job.

Some excerpts:

Kwon was born in Flushing, New York, to South Korean immigrants. He moved to Concord, CA and attended Northgate High School, where he graduated valedictorian and played varsity water polo and track & field. Kwon attended college at Stanford University, graduating in 1997 with a B.S. degree in Symbolic Systems. As a student, he earned recognition for both academic achievement (Phi Beta Kappa) and community service.

Kwon’s professional career spanned a variety of roles across technology, law, business, and government. He worked at two law firms - Venture Law Group and Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis. He served a judicial clerkship with Judge Barrington D. Parker, Jr. on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. He also worked as a legislative aide to U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman in Washington, DC.

Kwon is involved with numerous charitable projects. After Survivor, he helped his co-finalist, Becky Lee, establish Becky’s Fund, a nonprofit helping victims of domestic violence. He works with several nonprofits to raise awareness of the need for more minority bone marrow donors, and is a spokesperson for the Asian American Donor Program and the National Marrow Donor Program.

During the 2007-2008 U.S. presidential campaign, Kwon supported then-Senator Barack Obama and campaigned for him as a surrogate in the Asian American community.

Kwon, with business partners, became the Northern California franchisee for Red Mango, a national frozen yogurt brand specializing in healthy probiotic yogurt and yogurt-based foods.

So while he did make the following lists in 2006/2007: People Magazine’s Sexiest Men Alive, People Magazine's Hottest Bachelors, and Extra TV's Most Eligible Bachelors, he has some real qualifications for his job at FCC.

The last media celebrity I recall working at FCC was Adrian Cronauer, the inspiration for the Robin Williams character in Good Morning, Vietnam.

2009-11-11T14:36:00.011-05:00

Unfortunately, You Can't Make

the Wireless Microphone

Problem Go

Away by Taking a Different

Tack in TV White Spaces

There seem to be repeated rumors coming out of FCC that maybe they should take a different approach to utilizing TV "white spaces" by licensing them for broadband. Perhaps some think this will solve the wireless microphone problem painlessly - it won't.

TV white spaces are the inevitable result of TV broadcast licensing, especially when there is uneven terrain and uneven population distribution. There will always be places where there is no usable TV signal on a channel and were lower power use of that channel by other services is possible without interference. Under analog TV there was a lot more such white space due to the "UHF taboos" necessary to avoid neighboring channel interference to TV sets with mediocre selectivity. (FCC efforts in the 1970s to improve TV selectivity and decrease white spaces went down in flames due to broadcaster opposition.)

Wireless mics can use TV white space to provide a useful service, but in doing so inevitably use spectrum inefficiently compared to other possible users of white space. Why? Wireless mic use is intermittent in both space and time and only uses a tiny fraction of the space/time/spectrum resource made available by TV white spaces. Hence use is heavy in the Broadway theatre district of Manhattan and in a few other theatre districts. Use is heavy near churches for a few hours a week. But reserving TV white spaces for the exclusive use of wireless mics denies the spectrum to other that can use it much more intensely.

The current wireless mic mess is a result of both benign neglect of FCC towards this sector and aggressive merchandising by mainly Shure, Inc. to large numbers of users ineligible under current FCC rules to use them. (The hypocrisy of the TV broadcasters for opposing Part 74 eligibility for the churches and theatres for years, if not decades, and then becoming Shure's "best buddy" during Docket 04-186 is certainly a case of "strange bedfellows".)

I have repeatedly written here that "wireless mics are a legitimate use of spectrum (that) deserves more from FCC than benign neglect that allows most users only criminal spectrum squatting" . Yet FCC has taken no action even on the relatively simple issue in Docket 08-166 of evicting wireless mics from the spectrum that is now licensed to others after the DTV transition, let alone the more complex issue in Docket 08-167 of whether action should be taken against anyone for flaunting the Commission's rules and creating a de facto reallocation of spectrum.

The only way to avoid the inefficient use of white space that would result from preserving the present squatting of large numbers of users is to move towards a new method of serving wireless mic needs that does not give them exclusive, hence inefficient, spectrum. Let me note that CMRS licensees already have the regulatory flexibility offer femtocell-like systems that transmit wireless mic signals on CMRS spectrum without interconnection to the public network - one way connections from the microphone to the theatre/church audio panel. While the microphones and analog-to-digital convertors (DAC) used in cell phones are not of sufficient sound quality for many wireless mic applications, there is enough CMRS bandwidth available now to permit adequate quality with better mics and DACs. If the CMRS crowd really wants 800 MHz below 3 GHz , maybe it should seriously think about helping FCC by proposing a practical alternative to the wireless mic impasse.

Another approach to solving wireless mic spectrum problems is to move this use to another band where it will have a compatible spectrum sharing partner. Since wireless mics are a distinctly short range service, such sharing should be possible. For starters, the 1435-1525 MHz aeronautical telemetry band might be considered.

But letting wireless mics just sit in white spaces will inevitably cause problems for both the current policy adopted under Docket 04-186 and any alternative path the Commission might go down.

2009-11-07T09:41:00.007-05:00

GPS

and

The Big Dig:

1) If GPS amplifier use in underground highways causes no problems, why is it illegal?

2) If it is illegal, why don't FCC and NTIA care about enforcement?

A few months ago I was in Boston staying with relatives in the Northern suburbs. I was invited to give a talk at the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable, located at South Station in the center of Boston. Without thinking too much I punched the address into my trusty GPS and headed South. I am a native of Boston but hadn't thought of the impact of the "Big Dig", the major highway reconstruction in Boston that moved several key highways to underground bringing the harbor back to the cityscape. As I entered Boston from Cambridge it was an "Oh, sh.." moment as I realized that I was entering a Big Dig tunnel and my GPS would lose signal. However, it did not and even followed me through the tunnel and told me what exit to take. Amazing?

Recently I had a similar occurrence in the I-395 tunnel in downtown Washington. Not unrelated is noticing that my GPS works in rental car parking garages at certain airports such as Phoenix. Why do these things happen?

The most likely explanation is the use of GPS amplifiers - amplifiers with an outdoor antenna that receives a GPS signal and a second antenna in an area that has no GPS signal which it "illuminates". THESE ARE ILLEGAL (except with a license this can only be obtained in special circumstances.) Why are they illegal? The main GPS frequency, 1575 MHz, is an exclusive Federal Government band and is listed in 15.205 as a "restricted band" - forbidding all unlicensed systems. NTIA has provisions in its "Red Book", the analog to FCC Rules, for use of this band. This gives terms for federal agencies to use systems other than GPS in this band. FCC and NTIA have an understanding that is documented nowhere on the public record that nonfederal users, e.g. FCC regulatees, may apply to FCC for an experimental license for use of this band and it will be reviewed by NTIA in accordance with Red Book Section 8.3.28. If NTIA agrees with the request, an experimental license can be issued by FCC. While 8.3.28 does not say so, senior staff at NTIA have said that they will only approve GPS amplifiers in connection with testing GPS receivers - not for use in tunnels and garages. It appears that this unwritten policy is applied inconsistently.

In any case, a search of the FCC database shows no valid experimental licenses for this band in Boston. It would appear that the GPS signals are coming from an illegal transmitter.

(I thought the GPS amplifiers in question might have been put there to support cellular base stations in the tunnel as cellular base stations usually need GPS input for both frequency and time reference. However, some inquiries revealed that several cellular carriers in Boston collaborated in a fiber optic system that brings the GPS information to their underground base stations without reradiating them in the tunnel. Do all the cellular carriers in the Big Dig use this system? I don't know.)

As you can see from the map at the top of this page, the Big Dig is close to Logan Airport.

Has the illegal system in the tunnel caused any problems? It certainly has helped the public traveling through the Big Dig.
If it hasn't caused any problems, why does NTIA continue to forbid this type of spectrum use?
Since it is illegal and NTIA insists it is a safety-related issue, why doesn't FCC take some enforcement action?

Perhaps NTIA and FCC could explain their views on this issue for the benefit of readers.

2009-11-03T17:06:00.013-05:00

Neutrality on

FCC Website

A Surprising Feature of ULS -
the "Universal" Licensing System

I ventured into ULS this week for the first time. Most of my work with FCC involves experimental (Part 5) licenses or rulemakings so I had never entered an application on ULS. For those who also haven't dealt with ULS, here is the official party line:

The Universal Licensing System (ULS) is the easy, online answer to your wireless licensing and research needs. ULS simplifies the application and licensing processes and provides secure, world-wide access through the Internet. This results in reduced filing time and financial savings for both customers and the federal government.

The ULS is browser-based, for ease of use, and provides built-in security. It contains everything you need for electronic filing. You will select the service and the purpose of your application, and the system will dynamically create a screen that will only ask you for the information that is needed. Likewise, if you want to make an administrative change in our licensing database or are required to submit a filing on a specific call sign, you'll be able to access your records with a password and immediately make the changes. Determining the status of an application is just as fast and easy.

Keeping Pace with Technology - The ULS incorporates the latest technical advances that are revolutionizing personal communications and information access to provide wireless radio licensees with online access to their FCC license records. Use your Web connection to keep abreast of fast-breaking developments, and use the ULS to keep your existing registrations up to date as changes occur. (Emphasis added)

Despite its name and the discussion above, ULS is not universal within FCC although it is "universal" within the world of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Other Title III wireless/radio licensing systems at FCC include:

Broadcast Radio and Television Electronic Filing System (CDBS)
Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS)
International Bureau Electronic Filing System (MyIBFS)
OET Experimental Licensing System Electronic Filing

(The OET-maintained General Menu Reports System (GenMen) allows access to review licenses across all 5 systems, but does not allow input of information.)

But the real surprise was the problem I encountered which is shown in the screen shot in the upper left corner of this posting. ULS supports Windows 98, NT, 2000, ME, XP and Windows Vista. It also supports the following browsers: IE8, IE6, Firefox 2, Netscape 8.1 .

Firefox 3, Safari, Chrome - no guarantees. But it is good to know that Netscape 8.1 is still supported! The site also says:

"NOTE: ULS does not support Linux, Unix,

Sun Solaris, or Macintosh operating systems."

I suppose Mac fans like me should not be too jealous because even Windows 7 isn't supported.

But I hope the new team at FCC reviews this issue and sets some goals to prevent this type of problem in the future. Clearly these quirks of ULS have been around for a while and can't be fixed overnight. But recognizing them can help guide revision of the FCC website.

Why should FCC, presumably the most tech savvy agency in the federal government, have web-based systems that are so fussy about the users' systems?

I don't know what the traffic to the FCC website looks like, but the traffic to this blog uses the browsers shown below. In the past 500 readers, nary a Netscape user! Lots of IE 7, Firefox 3, Safari, and even a few Chrome and Opera users. I assume FCC website visitors have a similar spectrum of software systems.

(Click on chart to get clearer version)

2009-11-03T13:15:00.004-05:00

IEEE Wireless Communications

10/09 Spectrum Policy

Column Now Published

Your blogger's regular column on spectrum policy in IEEE Wireless Communications magazine was published this week. Unlike this blog, the IEEE column describes issues and tries to avoid advocating positions.

The new column is entitled "Wireless Innovation and Spectrum Policy: The FCC Opens a New Inquiry" and deals with Docket 09-157. It boldly stated that "(t)he final deadline for comments in thsi inquiry is after the publication date of this magazine". This became incorrect when the FCC delayed reply comments and IEEE was very timely with the publication.

2009-11-02T17:11:00.007-05:00

France's "CTIA"
on
RF Safety Issues

I was visiting France recently, went into a store of one of the major cellular operators and bought a new SIM card to activate my old French GSM unit during my visit. With the card came all sorts of literature, but what caught my attention was the brochure shown at left - the picture is linked to a .pdf of the whole brochure on the website of Association Française des Opérateurs Mobiles (AFOM), the French counterpart to CTIA.

Now, based on my high school French study and 3 years living in Paris, I am not exactly a certified translator, so what follows is the gist of what it says. But feel free to consult the original text with someone of more professional skills if you don't believe me.

The brochure clearly says that the health authorities do not think that cell phone use is a health issue at exposure levels required by governments.

(Actually the French use the European standard of an SAR limit of 2.0 W/kg vs the FCC limit of 1.6 . Furthermore, details of how the European standard is measured actually makes it actually somewhat higher than it would appear numerically.)

So what does the real CTIA have to tell the public about RF safety? Surf on over and see. You will find statements like

To date, the available scientific evidence does not show that any health problems are associated with using wireless phones. Many studies of low-level RF exposure, such as that which occurs with wireless devices, have not discovered any negative biological effects. Some studies have suggested such a connection, but their findings have not been replicated or supported in additional research.

You find similar statements on the AFOM site and in this document. But you will also find the section shown at left entitled "Comment réduire mon exposition aux ondes radio quand je téléphone ?" Which your nonexpert translates has "How can I reduce my RF exposure while using the phone?" As I have said before, RF exposure doesn't do you any good, so why not try to reduce it?

AFOM reports that the health authorities recommend using what we would call a Bluetooth headset during calls. Health authorities also advise, according to AFOM, that pregnant women keep cell phones away from their abdomen (" il est conseillé aux femmes enceintes d’éloigner le téléphone du ventre et aux adolescents de l’éloigner du bas ventre. ")

Finally, AFOM tells us that the "health authorities" advise that you should use your phones in areas with good reception, that is more bars. (On the phone, not drinking establishments nearby! In French it is unambiguous.) ("Elles conseillent également de téléphoner de préférence dans les zones où la réception est de bonne qualité. La qualité de la réception est indiquée par le nombre de barrettes sur l’écran de votre téléphone.") That, perhaps should be obvious, but I must admit I have never thought of it before.

So this guidance does not come from some radical left wing tree-hugging environmentalists opposed to capitalism, but from a CTIA-like trade association of major French operators. I agree with CTIA that there is no evidence the cell phones cause health problems, but why not encourage people to think about selecting models with lower SAR, using Bluetooth headsets, and using handsets in areas with better reception?

I note that Verizon Wireless puts SAR date for each cell phone model it sells on the web pages for the models. But the other major operators that are CTIA members do not appear to have the information on their websites - perhaps it is there but hidden in obscurity.

Cell phones are useful devices that have contributed both to economic growth and public safety. It is a shame that CTIA starts acting like the former Tobacco Institute when it concerns any possible negative impact of cell phones.

2009-10-29T17:14:00.005-04:00

"Broadcasters Ponder

FCC Spectrum

Reclamation"

A recent Broadcasting and Cable article had this surprising headline.

The article started with this revelation,

A source confirms that broadcasters at last week's NAB board meeting in Dallas discussed the possibility of turning much of their digital spectrum back in to the government in exchange for a cut of the proceeds when that spectrum was reauctioned for wireless broadband. "There was not much support for the idea," said the source.

The "not much support" was not surprising. But the mere fact that they discussed a socially progressive potential economic stimulus concept that flies in the face of rigid broadcaster dogma and someone in the sacred inner circles of NAB had the temerity to leak it is what is surprising.

The issue at hand is the so called "big bang" proposal by Evan Kwerel and John Williams of FCC in 2002 in OPP Working Paper 38 in conjunction with the FCC's Spectrum Policy Task Force.

The abstract of the report states,

To facilitate the rapid transition from administrative allocation of spectrum to market allocation, this paper proposes that the FCC (1) reallocate restricted spectrum to flexible use; (2) conduct large-scale, two-sided auctions of spectrum voluntarily offered by incumbents together with any unassigned spectrum held by the FCC, and (3) provide incumbents with incentives to participate in such “band restructuring” auctions by immediately granting participants flexibility and allowing them to keep the proceeds from the
sale of their spectrum.

The proposal was not well received at the time.

But perhaps the NAB Board had read your blogger's comments to the FCC Innovation NOI.

Since NAB paid so much attention, here is the section they probably were thinking about:

Para. 54 (of the NOI) seeks comment on “innovations in the use of renewable energy and other green technology to makes wireless networks more energy efficient or address other environmental concerns.” At the risk of saying the obvious, the TV broadcast band uses a large amount of electric power to transmit RF signals that are actually received by an ever decreasing number of subscribers. The main apparent need for these transmitters is to guarantee to broadcast licensees “must carry” status with CATV systems. The use of electric power and the RF occupancy appears to be mainly a byproduct of this desired endgoal that gives 90+% of the viewership of licensed TV broadcasters. While over-the-air broadcasting gives consumers access to broadcast signals at no marginal cost compared to the pricing of MVDS service, policy options exist to offer basic MVDS service as comparable cost. For example, part of fees from new users utilizing former TV spectrum could be used to finance “lifeline” MVDS service.

MSS has no objection to giving present TV broadcasters long term must carry status, but questions why this must be accompanied with the waste of electric power and squatting on spectrum to deny it to others. While it is no possible under present law to let broadcasters keep must carry status without transmitting largely “unreceived” signals, MSS urges the Commission to explore and make recommendations to Congress for giving TV broadcasters incentives to cease using large amounts of electric power and cease filling spectrum with largely unwatched signals while retaining today’s must carry rights.

Reuters coverage: U.S. broadcasters balking at FCC spectrum plan

2009-10-27T06:53:00.001-04:00

FiOS has a Bad Day!

We have been FiOS customers since we returned from France 2 years ago. In general the service has been great. But Wednesday, disaster struck and Verizon responded very poorly.

So, Mr. Seidenberg, if you are reading, here is how your firm treats customers.

Wednesday morning my wife was calling France on our Vonage line. Why Vonage if we have FiOS triple play? Simply put, VZ's international rates are an anachronistic throwback to the AT&T monopoly era. $3.43/minute for calls to France? VZ offers its payphone customers cheaper rates than that! Hasn't VZ heard that the real going rate for international calls to industrialized countries is about $.10/minute. Why should you have to pay VZ a monthly retainer to get market rates? FCC deregulated international calls a decade or so, assuming their would be effective competition. VZ showed they were wrong.

But I digress. In the middle of her call, the line died and so did all our Internet service. As little checking showed that it was probably the FiOS router since all the lights on it were now out. This is a nonstandard router with clear warnings not to use a normal router as a replacement. So I called VZ and had a discussion. The help center quickly agreed the router was dead and offered to send me a new one overnight UPS. I asked if I could get it faster. They checked and said that I could get one at a VZ store and gave the address for the one in Montgomery Mall, a few miles away. So I got the the Mall when it opened at 10:30 AM to discover the booth there had no hardware of any type. They thought the Wheaton Mall store was large and might have it. But they couldn't say where the store actually was, "next to the old Circuit City and some government office" and the only phone number they had just reached a computerized call center.

So off to Wheaton Mall. In all fairness, the VZ staff there was very nice and very apologetic about their bumbling colleagues to had sent me on a wild goose chase. So back home empty handed. Fortunately, I had bought a VZ Wireless cellphone with an unadvertised feature: with a $20 extra cable you can connect it to a computer and use it as a wireless broadband modem. BUT unless the other specialized modems VZW sells, you can turn the high priced broadband service on and off subject only to 3 changes/account/month. So I call VZW, obviously could not reach them by Internet at this point, and turned the wireless broadband feature on. Thus we limped along for the next day or so.

1 PM Thursday the UPS guy shows up with the new router. It says run the CD with it when you connect it. Turns out the CD is Windows only! As you might guess, your blogger is a Mac fan. Another call to VZ and lots of apologies, turns out the CD shouldn't ne needed if you had run the previous one with the old router. OK, but the new router still didn't work. After 30 minutes of more resets of various equipment - I must admit it is impressive how they can troubleshoot problems without a truck roll. We are back in business.

Then I ask if I can get credit for the lost service. You can ask and in 2 months (!!) you will find out what they decide. Will they just wipe the VZW broadband charge off the books? No one could understand that logic.

So, Mr. Seidenberg, if you are reading this, could you look into this accounting credit? Could you also explain why none of your staff in the DC area has an extra router that customers can pickup in case of hardware failure?

2009-10-23T12:20:00.004-04:00

FCC Announces Workshop
on ex parte Reform

Faithful readers may recall that ex parte reform has been a recurring issue in this blog. (A B C D) No doubt as a response to this grass roots campaign, the Commission announced yesterday a workshop Wednesday on ex parte reform that will be simulcast over the web. I hope you watch it, or better yet, come and ask questions.

Washington, D.C. --The Federal Communications Commission will hold a staff workshop on October 28, 2009 to explore possible revisions to the Commission’s ex parte rules and processes to enhance the transparency of the Commission’s actions while at the same time maximizing the exchange of information between the public and the Commission.

This workshop follows an internal study of the current ex parte rules by Commission staff which identified a number of areas in which the current rules might be improved or updated. The workshop will also explore new issues posed by the increasing use of Internet-based media of communication and expression, such as blogs.

The workshop participants consist of practicing attorneys as well as representatives of companies, trade associations, and public interest groups, all of whom have substantial experience with the ex parte rules. The panelists will provide their perspectives on the successes and shortcomings of the current rules and suggest alternatives to better balance the goals of fairness, openness, and efficiency. A moderating panel of senior FCC staff will direct the panel discussions and pose questions.

2009-10-20T15:06:00.003-04:00

RF Filters: An Important but Often Overlooked Issue in Spectrum Policy

Problems With the New 3G and 4G Frequency Band

by Mike Alferman*, Guest Blogger

The current big push to ‘mobilize’ the Internet is raising the awareness in the industry to the capabilities and requirements for a passive component that normally doesn’t get into the spotlight. However, this component – the RF Bandpass Filter, has been a key item in radio spectrum policy for years. With the efforts to open up new frequency bands for wireless internet use, the RF Filter may in fact start doing some driving. However, without some intervention, it could be that the commercial realization of the needed filters may not happen.

Historically, the FCC allocated frequency bands and added additional spectrum as ‘Guard Bands’ to prevent the interference between services operating on adjacent frequency bands. In addition, the in-band frequency use was coordinated based on the best practice engineering requirements of the time. As commented in the this blog, when UHF TV was first licensed in the US, (with non-critical services located on either side of the allocated bands) the adjacent channels were left unoccupied as it was determined that the discrete component LC RF and IF Filters available in the TV receiver Tuners when the band was opened were incapable of the high performance required to eliminate adjacent stations from interfering with each other. Thus, due to the poor performance of the receiver tuner’s RF filters, large areas of the allocated spectrum were left unused. This spectrally wasteful practice wasn’t significant as there was enough spectrum capacity for the needs at that time. Obviously, times have changed.

The FCC is currently responding to the need to use every possible MHz of the public’s valuable spectrum and has eliminated the practice of adding significant Guard Bands between new services. While being more efficient in spectrum use, this has created a real problem! The reality of all RF Filter design is that a certain amount of frequency is required for the transition from the Passband to the Stopband (the roll-off). It should be noted that the theoretical ‘brick wall’ filter will forever remain theoretical because in addition to the roll-off of the basic filter design, allowances must be made in the design of practical filters for the shift of the filter due to temperature as well as for manufacturing tolerances. This means that current practical commercial RF Bandpass Filters for the new frequency allocations are not capable of preventing some interference between services.

To be certain, RF Filter performance has come a long way since the days of the old UHF TV tuner! Filters then were large multi-stage discrete LC units with modest performance – and to operate had to be aligned in manufacturing. In the late 80’s, Surface Acoustic Wave (SAW) filters became common in TV tuner IF stages. The performance of the SAW Filters was significantly better than what could be achieved with LC filters with much better manufacturability - in a much smaller package. In the last 20 years SAW Filters have continued to improve. The performance of the relatively low frequency SAW IF Filters of the late 80’s is now possible with SAW RF Filters at the much higher operating frequencies. At this time, the operating frequency for commercial SAWs has increased to above 2.5 GHz, the Filter rejection ‘skirts’ have greatly improved, the Insertion Loss of an average SAW Filter has been minimized – and all achieved at the same time as a 94% decrease in the package size and cost. BAW (Bulk Acoustic Wave – also called FBAR) Filters became common in the last 5 years and have yet higher frequency capability and better roll-off than SAW filters. However the cost, packaging and development time of BAW Filters are still a few years behind that of SAW filters.

Technically, in order to better meet the requirements for the new frequency bands, the needs for the improvement of both SAW and BAW Filter performance are similar. Adding a frequency trimming step in manufacturing improves the manufacturing yields, but adds costs and increases the price of each filter. Both SAW and BAW Filters shift with operating temperature due to the materials they are made with. Decreasing this temperature shift has been the focus of development work for several years, and it’s clear that it will be a few years before the manufacturability and electrical performance of the temperature compensated filters will be at the same point as the current generation filters.

SAW and BAW filters have become the most widely used RF Bandpass filters in the world, with Billions being used each year in Cell phones. There is no filter technology that can provide better performance in a small, cost-effective solution for the standard frequency bands around the globe. However, the move to create new frequency bands for 3G and 4G services has been regional. The US has come up with several bands which will not be allocated worldwide and the spectrum auctions have resulted in a limited number of licensees that will use a particular band. This means that instead of unifying (standardizing) the frequencies to be used, competing services will be using different frequency bands. This market fragmentation creates a limited market for the RF Filters for each band. This is a problem for the commercial SAW and BAW Filter manufacturers. It should be noted that the new requirements (without Guard Bands) make the design of the filters for each band significantly different from the design for other bands – significantly increasing the design effort required and even requiring special materials and special processing. This means it is unlikely that the filter manufacturers can profitably produce the new more technically challenging RF Bandpass Filters at the low prices demanded by the equipment manufacturers. It should be noted that this uncertain profitability falls in the Passive Component industry, which currently only has single-digit profit margins and is fighting for survival.

The new materials and special processing needed to increase the technical performance of the SAW and BAW Filters for these new bands add both high costs and uncertainty of the electrical performance. The structures being developed for the new filter designs will take a few years before they reach the stable manufacturing of the current generation of filters. If you add up the factors of the relatively small market for each new frequency band with the higher costs for producing the filters and the uncertainties of the manufacturers making a profit, you begin to realize that the commercial issues may well rival the technical challenges. When combining these significant challenges, it can be seen why there is currently a strong reluctance by the SAW and BAW filter manufacturers to move forward to develop all the necessary RF Filters.

What can be done to make the development of necessary higher-performance RF Filters attractive to develop? For one, it must be realized by the community that the RF Filters for the new bands are not just a simple commodity on which the usual high-volume pricing pressure can be applied. They are a critical component which must meet the tough new requirements – or else the rest of the higher profit radio will not function properly. In addition, as suggested by MSS in the Comments to the FCC NOI, there must be a dialog with the FCC, the NTIA and the major RF filter manufacturers to assess what can be possible with commercial technology – including discussion on both sides of performance roadmaps. Also, equipment manufacturers can not just assume that because there is a need, someone will develop technology that works as they want – and it will be the same low prices as Cellular filters.

=====

* Mike Alferman, mikealferman2@embarqmail.com, has been active with RF for 40 years: 12+ years at EPCOS/Siemens as head of RF Applications Engineering and Product Marketing for SAW/BAW Filters and Modules. Key role in developing RF filtering solutions for cellular handsets, WiFi consumer equipment and WiMAX RF modules. 9 years at Andersen Laboratories as SAW Filter Design Engineer and SAW Applications Engineer. Key role in developing cellular Basestation IF Filters, HDTV IF Filters and Radar Chirp Filters. Held various other Communications Technician, Engineering Technician and Field Engineering positions. Significant Experience with Cellular Systems and Handsets, Land Mobile Radio and Radar/EW systems.Holder of Commercial General Radiotelephone License (formerly called First Class) and Amateur Radio Advanced Class License (WA2NAS)

2009-10-18T11:27:00.003-04:00

Mobile DTV Standard Adopted by Industry

On Friday the Open Mobile Video Coalition (OMVC), "an alliance of U.S. commercial and public broadcasters formed to accelerate the development and rollout of mobile DTV products and services" issued this press release:

OMVC ... today announced it is “All Systems Go” for a new era of television service on mobile devices. With Thursday’s adoption of a final mobile digital television (Mobile DTV) broadcast standard by the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC), U.S. broadcasters are poised to roll out an array of digital program services that will be available to consumers on devices ranging from in-car screens to portable DVD players and mobile phones.
“I congratulate ATSC for its remarkable achievement in bringing this standard to fulfillment. Mobile DTV utilizes the same digital spectrum that local TV stations use to send beautiful HD programming to the nation’s living rooms. With adoption of the ATSC Mobile DTV standard, small-screen versions of that programming and other services also will now be available over mobile devices,” said Brandon Burgess, president of the OMVC and CEO of ION Media Networks.

OMVC today demonstrated the services enabled by the new standard during a Mobile DTV briefing for government officials and others on a bus traveling around the Nation’s Capital. Seven Washington-area TV stations transmitted live local news, weather, sports and favorite programs to Mobile DTV compatible devices including mobile phones, laptop computers and netbook PCs. Senior representatives of the participating DTV stations, ATSC, the Association for Maximum Service Television (MSTV), the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and technology companies participated in the dialog about the new standard and the new mobile services it will support.

Broadcasting & Cable, the prime cheerleader for broadcasters, has this quote:

Paul Karpowicz, NAB Television Board chairman and president of Meredith Broadcast Group, added, "This milestone ushers in the new era of digital television broadcasting, giving local TV stations and networks new opportunities to reach viewers on the go. This will introduce the power of local broadcasting to a new generation of viewers and provide all-important emergency alert, local news and other programming to consumers across the nation."

In case you want to know what this system actually is, an ATSC document with real details is here. A brief summary from p. 12-13 of this document states:

The M/H system provides mobile/pedestrian/handheld broadcasting services using a portion of the ~19.39 Mbps ATSC 8-VSB payload, while the remainder is still available for HD and/or multiple SD television services. The M/H system is a dual-stream system—the ATSC service multiplex for existing digital television services and the M/H service multiplex for one or more mobile, pedestrian and handheld services.
Central to the M/H system are additions to the physical layer of the ATSC transmission system that are easily decodable under high Doppler rate conditions. The requirements for these additions are defined in this Part. Extra training sequences and forward error correction (FEC) are added to assist reception of the enhanced stream(s).

So the new system, formally A/153, just takes capacity from the 19.4 Mb/s that "free"/over-the-air DTV is sending in a 6 MHz TV channel and diverts it to mobile services. Since the mobile services are in a much more difficult reception situation due to poor antennas and motion that results in doppler shifts, this shift of capacity is not a zero sum game. Every b/s of end capacity used for mobile reception will divert more than 1 b/s from home DTV reception. Thus having bought a new big DTV receiver, you may find that the number of b/s available from "free TV", hence picture quality, will decrease as broadcasters go after a new market using spectrum they didn't pay for to compete against others who paid for spectrum. (If broadcasters directly sell services to viewers, then they must split the income with Uncle Same per existing legislation.)

While this technology can be introduced without any additional FCC action due to the deregulatory nature of FCC technical regulation these days, it is likely that the broadcasting establishment will use this as a justification to get even more protection for their signals and limit spectrum options for others.

NY Times coverage

2009-10-16T13:11:00.003-04:00

New ECFS to be Unveiled
Next Friday

Those of us who are communications policy wonks are endless frustrated by the workings of the Commission’s Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS), first introduced in 1998 and planned under the Hundt Chairmanship. I saw Chmn. Hundt recently at a social event and he was surprised to hear that the original systems is still in use with only minor updates.

On October 14th the Commission announced the new system and scheduled a public demo for 10/23. They described the new features as following:

With the 2.0 upgrade, ECFS will including many new features, including fully Section 508 compliance; the ability for users to file multiple documents to multiple rulemakings in a single submission; advanced search and query of rulemakings; ability to extract comments; RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds; and the ability to export data results to Excel or PDF formats.

Oddly, there is no explicit announcement of when the new system will be available.

The announced new features are certainly welcome. But we would like to see if they have solved some of the following problems:

1. Allowing people with overseas addresses to file directly without an obscure "work around" of giving misleading addresses.

2. Allow viewing of documents that "fall between the cracks" now and are not viewable such as new petitions for rulemaking and petitions for review of actions that do not have docket or file numbers.

3. Will more documents be posted with text that can be copied electronically. Some parties now file scanned .pdf files or locked .pdf files that can not be copied. This complicates the work of both FCC staff in preparing comment summaries and outside parties preparing reply comments.

4. ECFS 1.0 has an undocumented and unsupported feature that is very useful: you can derive a URL for a specific docket and use it to go directly to the current list of comments for that docket. For example, the comments for Docket 04-186 are (or at least have been_http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=retrieve_list&id_proceeding=04-186 I hope ECFS 2.0 has a similar feature.

2009-10-14T09:29:00.002-04:00

TWENTY-ONE DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY COMMENTS
ON
WIRELESS INNOVATION AND INVESTMENT NOTICE OF INQUIRY

GN Docket No. 09-157
GN Docket No. 09-51

Revised Reply Comment Deadline: November 5, 2009

From an FCC PN:

On August 27, 2009, the Commission issued the Wireless Innovation and Investment Notice of
Inquiry (NOI),which provided that comments were due on September 28, 2009, and that reply comments
were due on October 12, 2009. On September 10, 2009, the Commission released the Public Noticein
this proceeding, extending the comment and reply comment deadlines to help ensure development of a
more complete record. The Commission established a new pleading cycle for the NOI, with comments
due on September 30, 2009 and replies due on October 15, 2009.

On October 2, 2009, CTIA –The Wireless Association (“CTIA”) and Public Knowledge filed a
joint request for a 21-day extension of the reply comment deadline “[to] enable interested parties to
review and evaluate the record submitted in the initial comment round.” CTIA and Public Knowledge
state that the current deadline for reply comments is just 15 days after the initial comments were filed,
that it coincides with filing deadlines in other pending Commission proceedings, and that extending the
due date for reply comments would serve the public interest by affording interested parties participating
in the proceedings a more feasible sequence of filing deadlines, thereby providing sufficient time to digest
the record and formulate meaningful responses on reply.

I suppose CTIA and Public Knowledge don't agree on much, so it was best to go along with their joint recommendation.

But I could also point out that while CTIA said on October 2 that it needed more time to file reply comments, it did have time to prepare for meetings with Chmn. Genachowski and Comm. Copps on the same day it filed.

FCC transparency would improve if large trade associations filed comments on time rather than rush to have secretive meetings not available to other parties in the same proceeding at the same time they claim they need filing extensions.

2009-10-08T11:11:00.006-04:00

Without Opposition, Senate Approves Bill Directing FCC to Start Prison Jamming Rulemaking

Those of us in Maryland received this message from Governor Martin O'Malley:

Thanks to the leadership of Senator Barbara Mikulski in the United States Senate, this week we came one step closer to eliminating the use of illegal cell phones in our prisons. The Senate unanimously passed the Safe Prisons Communications Act of 2009 which, if implemented, would provide us the tools to use technology to block illegal inmate cell phone calls from within the walls of our prisons.

The use of cell phones by inmates constitutes a significant threat to public safety in Maryland's neighborhoods. The ability to communicate with the outside world illegally provides prisoners the ability to continue their criminal activity, and in some cases, threaten witnesses in their own criminal cases.

While the dedicated professionals in Maryland's prisons have stepped up their efforts to seize illegal cell phones, the only way we can definitively end the illegal calls is by blocking their signal. This legislation would give us the ability to do just that, providing us the access to urgently needed jamming technology.

I want to thank Senator Mikulski for her co-sponsorship of this bipartisan legislation and for her tireless work to improve the public safety here in Maryland. As the Safe Prisons Communications Act makes its way through the House of Representatives, we will continue to monitor its progress and advocate for its passage.

There is no public comment yet on the usually up to date CTIA website, although their fact sheet saying

"The fundamental issue is that wireless phones are a contraband problem, not a telecommunications policy issue."

remains. Apparently the Senate disagrees.

Senate Report

Text of Legislation

2009-10-04T01:54:00.003-04:00

Equipment Approval and Early Revelation of New Models:

A Poorly Publicized Existing Option at FCC Can Prevent This

Ever notice news articles about innovative wireless devices that are revealed not by their developers but as a byproduct of FCC equipment authorization? Here are three recent examples.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-10302110-48.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10318292-1.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10350839-1.html
http://www.slashgear.com/cisco-flipsharetv-streamer-system-outed-by-fcc-3062285/

Apparently these major manufacturers are not aware of an obscure 2004 FCC Public Notice that is not well publicized by FCC. Another option would be to ask the TCB that does the approval on behalf of FCC to delay notifying FCC until the last minute.

For the benefit of loyal SpectrumTalk readers, here is the text of the 2004 Notice:

OET Equipment Authorization System Upgrade
Permits Electronic Submittal of
Short-Term Confidentiality Requests

An upgrade to the Office of Engineering and Technology’s (OET) Equipment
Authorization System will be implemented effective 06/15/2004. This upgrade will provide
additional flexibility for electronic submittal of requests for confidentiality of certain
commercially sensitive information that is submitted in conjunction with applications for
equipment authorization.

Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 0.457 and 0.459 of the Commission’s rules (47
CFR §§ 0.457, 0.459), the Office of Engineering and Technology currently accepts requests to
hold in confidence certain attachments to the electronic Application for Equipment Authorization
(Form 731). These requests are granted indefinitely, and are strictly reserved for limited types of
technical information.

The new electronic process will include a provision for temporary confidentiality for
certain additional portions of an application for equipment authorization. This will give
manufacturers and distributors the ability to import and/or distribute devices following
equipment authorization, while maintaining the confidentiality of detailed technical information
about the product prior to product launch. Electronic submittal of a request for such
confidentiality will ensure expedited approval and will make it less burdensome for
manufacturers and distributors to comply with the marketing regulations in 47 CFR §2.803 and
the importation rules in 47 CFR §2.1204, while ensuring that business sensitive information
remains confidential until the actual marketing of newly authorized devices. Such
confidentiality will extend for 45 days from the date of the Grant of Equipment Authorization,
and, absent any other action, the subject exhibits will be automatically placed on the public
database at the end of this period. However, if prior to the expiration of the 45 day period, an
applicant engages in public marketing activities or otherwise publicizes a device for which
temporary confidential treatment has been granted, the applicant must coincidentally notify the
FCC or the TCB issuing the equipment authorization so that the subject exhibits may be placed
in the public database immediately.

This limited confidentiality will be granted for the following exhibit types when an
applicant requests and justifies such confidentiality in conjunction with the Form 731, or a TCB
submits such information and justification in conjunction with the TC Form 731: External
Photos, Test Setup Photos, Block Diagram, Schematics, User’s Manual, Internal Photos, Parts
List / Tune-up Procedures, and Operational Description. Exhibits containing certain types of
technical information (e.g. Block diagram, Schematics, Parts List / Tune up Procedures, and
Operational Description) that have heretofore been granted indefinite confidential treatment will
continue to be so treated upon request. The confidentiality fee described in 47 CFR §1.1103 must
be submitted with the Form 731; however, only one confidentiality fee per FCCID is charged
regardless of the length of the confidentiality request.

If an applicant requires more than the original grant of confidentiality of 45 days, the
applicant can request an extension of the limited confidentiality for an additional 45 days. To do
so, the applicant must notify the FCC, or the TCB that issued the grant, a minimum of 7 calendar
days prior to the expiration of the original 45 day grant of confidentiality.

2009-09-26T17:05:00.001-04:00

MSS Comments in Wireless Innovation NOI

Your blogger has filed comments in the Wireless Innovation NOI, Docket 09-157. Here is a convenient link to all the filed comments using an undocumented feature of the FCC web site.

The MSS comments reviewed the following issues:

I. Introduction
II. Lessons of Pioneer’s Preference
III. Section 7 Issues
IV. “Receivers use spectrum not transmitters”
V. Innovative Wireless Systems Need Both Spectrum and Antennas
VI. “Green” Wireless Technologies
VII. Enforcement and Spectrum Options
VIII. More Effective G/NG Sharing
IX. Are the FCC and NTIA “Test-Beds” real or an Illusion?
X. Decision Making Issues
XI. The Role of Wireless Standards

Among the issues discussed is the question the Commission raised about "green" wireless technologies. In particular the MSS comments raise the question about why broadcasters must use hundreds of kilowatts of AC power to broadcast signals few watch in order to be eligible for "must carry" rights. This is a followup and modification to the pioneering proposals in OPP Working Paper 38 by Evan Kwerel and John Williams.

An observation: The NYTimes has a website that has more viewers than the printed edition. Does anyone require them to cut down trees and process wood pulp in order to get access to the Internet? Why must broadcasters both use large amounts of electric power and deny others the use of spectrum just to get the must carry rights that get them the overwhelming majority of their viewers? Under current law this is most likely necessary and there might even be some constitutional issues involving the rights of cable operators - but shouldn't FCC at least consider the issue?

The comments also urge FCC to work with NTIA to explore the possibility of future federal government systems that are designed from the beginning to share unused spectrum with FCC licensees. Such system need not be as conservative as cognitive radio systems in order to guarantee high confidence radio communications for the primary federal users. I had previously discussed this issue in a New American Foundation paper and at an IRAC meeting.

2009-09-25T11:05:00.002-04:00

FDA Asks National Academies to Review Its Approval Process
for New Technologies:
Why Doesn't FCC Ever Do This?

I have previously discussed the June 5, 2008 IEEE-USA letter to Chairman Martin (that never was answered in any way) that suggested improvements to FCC technical policy deliberations.

Part of the letter said,

• The National Academies. In the past FCC, like other federal regulatory agencies with technical jurisdiction, sought advice on long-term policy issues from the National Academies including the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering.

However, the last time the FCC asked for studies from the National Academies was in the 1970s when such studies laid the groundwork for two major changes in technical policy: the Part 68 interconnection rules and the sharing of the C band between terrestrial and satellite systems. Both of these issues were tremendously controversial at the time but the basic frameworks suggested by these studies formed the basis for major changes in FCC policy.

Such studies are time consuming and expensive and should not be used for routine policy deliberations, but it is clear that in the 30 years since FCC last used such studies there have been multiple cases where they could have been of value. It is not clear why FCC practice differs from other regulatory agencies in the use of the Academies.

To show that real federal regulatory agencies do exactly this type of thing even in this day and age, here is some recent news from FDA which has gotten "egg on its face" for some recent approvals of medical devices.

An FDA news release of 9/23/09 starts,

FDA: Institute of Medicine to Study Premarket Clearance Process for Medical Devices

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today announced that it has commissioned the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to study the premarket notification program used to review and clear certain medical devices marketed in the United States.

The IOM study will examine the premarket notification program, also called the 510(k) process, for medical devices. While the IOM study is underway, the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) will convene its own internal working group to evaluate and improve the consistency of FDA decision making in the 510(k) process.

“Good government conducts periodic reviews and evaluations of its programs,” said Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., acting director of CDRH. “Our working group and the IOM’s independent evaluation will help us determine how the 510(k) process can be improved to better support FDA’s mission to protect and promote the public health.” (Emphasis added)

The Institute of Medicine is the medical counterpart of the National Academy of Engineering, a member of the National Academy family. The press release goes on to say how FDA has asked the IOM to perform a $1.3 million 2 year study to review its processes and make recommendations. The study will include 2 public workshops.

Perhaps FCC deliberations for approval of new spectrum technologies merits the same type of objective review?

N.Y. Times article on this issue

2009-09-24T10:55:00.003-04:00

New Report on Value of Unlicensed Spectrum

Rich Thanki of Perspective Associates, a UK consulting firm, has completed a report on the value of unlicensed spectrum, commissioned by Microsoft.

Here is an abstract from the report:

The report provides quantification of the growing popularity of unlicensed applications, the value of some existing unlicensed applications, and the potential value in the so-called 'white spaces'. It also speaks more broadly to the innovative potential of the unlicensed approach. The report suggests that shipments of devices using unlicensed spectrum will surge over the next 5 years. By 2014, it finds that hybrid devices using both unlicensed and licensed spectrum could be outselling devices relying solely on licensed spectrum, including televisions, radios and some cellular phones. Sales of both could be overtaken substantially by sales of device using only unlicensed connectivity.

The report establishes a minimum value of unlicensed by analysing three existing applications: Wi-Fi in homes, Wi-Fi in hospitals, and RFID in clothing retail outlets in the US. Conservative estimates put the existing economic value being delivered by Wi-Fi in American homes at $4.3 - 12.6 billion a year. In combination these three uses could generate an economic value of $16 - 37 billion a year over the coming 15 years. The modelled uses only account for 15% of the total projected market for unlicensed chipsets in 2014, and therefore significantly underestimates the total value being generated by unlicensed usage over this time period. The paper also estimates the economic value that might be generated from existing Wi-Fi applications improved through using the white spaces as $3.9 -7.3 billion a year over the next 15 years.

The one area where I disagree somewhat with the report is the relationship between innovation and unlicensed spectrum. I agree that there has been tremendous innovation in unlicensed spectrum and am proud to have been partially responsible for getting it rolling.

The report says (p. 43)

But I think that a lot of the explanation has to do with issues besides whether there is a license or not. In Europe there is a de jure technical monoculture of DECT for unlicensed cordless phones. Under this type of traditional CEPT regulation, there is little innovation because it is effectively forbidden. By contrast, the US has no technical regulation of the air interface of cordless phones other than those strictly related to interference. Thus you can buy many types of cordless phones here, even DECT.

Europe also has a technical monoculture for cell phones thanks to CEPT and the European Commission: only GSM and the newer UMTS/3GSM. No surprise that CDMA, a technological core of UMTS, was first developed and commercialized in the US. In Europe, CEPT and ETSI require multinational consensus before such technologies can reach the market and this is near impossible for "disruptive innovation" such as CDMA in its early days.

The report correctly points out that in commercial licensed networks such as cellular there is a contractual relationship between users and the network and innovation has to evolve so that it does not disrupt the network. In Wi-Fi systems there is more distributed ownership that can response to new technology.

But the key issue here is not the presence or absence of a license, the key issue is deregulation. A major reason why unlicensed networks have been so innovative is that the descendants of the FCC Docket 81-413 rulemaking, e.g. Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and Zigbee have been in spectrum bands with great technical flexibility.

Cellular systems of necessity have to evolve more slowly, although the legal stricture that ETSI must approve any change to GSM and UMTS/3GSM not permitted in the current standard does not make any sense to me. With over 1 billion GSM mobiles in use, there are ample market place forces to keep evolving technology backward compatible.

If you overregulate unlicensed systems, they can stagnate just as much as licensed one often do.

2009-09-23T14:33:00.005-04:00

Excellence in Engineering at FCC:

No Secrecy This Time,
But Issues Remain

I wrote previously how the ancienne regime made recognition of good engineering work at FCC almost an embarrassing secret. By contrast the Excellence in Economics Awards at FCC have always been well publicized. The only tip that the awards were given last time in 2007 was a speech to the awardees on Comm. Tate's website - possibly because no one told her it was a secret. Additional ferreting was needed to find out who the winners were at that time.

Thus it was refreshing that at the end of the 8/27 Commission meeting, the winners of this year's Excellence in Engineering awards were publicly announced:

Stephen C. Buenzow (WTB)
Navid Golshahi (OET)
John Healy (PSHSB)
Brian Marenco (PSHSB)
James McLuckie (IB)
Chris Miller (WTB)
Michael Mullinix (IB)
Group Award: Alison Neplokh and John Gabrysch (MB)
Group Award: Tom Mooring, Peter Georgiou, David Sturdivant, Juan Guerra (OET)
Group Award: Dennis Loria, David Viglione, (EB) Tracy Simmons, Troy Sieg (PSHSB)

Oddly there has been no written announcement to date. But see 2:21 at the following link http://www.fcc.gov/realaudio/mt082709.ram

My congratulations to all the winners for a job well done!

2009-09-20T14:50:00.004-04:00

info Publishes
Special Issue on
Wi-Fi History

info: The journal of policy, regulation and strategy for telecommunications, information and media has recently published a special issue on "The genesis of unlicensed spectrum policy". My congratulations to Chuck Jackson who was both the organizer of the April 2008 seminar at George Mason University, "Unleashing Unlicensed - How Wi-Fi got its regulatory groove", that resulted in the writing of these papers and Guest Editor of this issue. Below is the table of contents of the issue with links to the papers. These links are free only to subscribers but the original versions of the papers are still available at the GMU site.

	Unlicensed to kill: a brief history of the Part 15 rules Kenneth R. Carter (pp. 8-18) View HTML \| View PDF (96 KB) \| Reprints & Permissions
	Wi-Fi and Bluetooth: the path from Carter and Reagan-era faith in deregulation to widespread products impacting our world Michael J. Marcus (pp. 19-35) View HTML \| View PDF (393 KB) \| Reprints & Permissions
	History of wireless local area networks (WLANs) in the unlicensed bands Kevin J. Negus, Al Petrick (pp. 36-56) View HTML \| View PDF (371 KB) \| Reprints & Permissions
	Licence-exempt: the emergence of Wi-Fi Vic Hayes, Wolter Lemstra (pp. 57-71) View HTML \| View PDF (119 KB) \| Reprints & Permissions
	Grazing on the commons: the emergence of Part 15 Henry Goldberg (pp. 72-75) View HTML \| View PDF (50 KB) \| Reprints & Permissions
	Unleashing innovation: making the FCC user-friendly Stephen J. Lukasik (pp. 76-85) View HTML \| View PDF (85 KB) \| Reprints & Permissions
	Has “unlicensed” in Part 15 worked? A case study Tim Pozar (pp. 86-91) View HTML \| View PDF (227 KB) \| Reprints & Permissions

Guest editorial



	The genesis of unlicensed wireless policy Vol : 11 Issue: 5 Special Issue: The genesis of unlicensed wireless policy Author(s): Charles L. Jackson View HTML

2009-09-13T22:53:00.004-04:00

USA Today Article on
Cell Phones' SAR Data
and FCC

On September 8, USA Today published an article entitled "Cellphone radiation levels vary widely, watchdog report says" . It began with this line the CMRS industry probably didn't want to hear, "Some cellphones emit several times more radiation than others, the Environmental Working Group found in one of the most exhaustive studies of its kind."

Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) is a measurement of how much radio power from a cell phone is absorbed in body. Usually the head is the key area for cell phones since they are held there. The FCC limit for SAR is 1.6 Watts/kilogram. It found phones that ranged from as low as 0.35 to as high as 1.55. Interestingly, Motorola had both one of the highest units as well as one of the lowest.

I have no personal knowledge or firm opinion about whether radio signals from cell phones affects health. However, there is no reason to believe it does any good to your health* so I understand why people might want to decide to minimize exposure even though the CMRS establishment thinks this is unnecessary. I think it is a matter of consumer choice in the face of uncertainty and government should make reasonable efforts to make relevant data available so market forces can work. Thus I am proud that while at FCC I helped break the impasse on making this information public by proposing a method for doing so that did not require unaffordable redesign of the FCC website.

At the end of the USA Today article, it stated

"The FCC currently doesn't require handset makers to divulge radiation levels. As a result, radiation rankings for dozens of devices, including the BlackBerry Pearl Flip 8230 and Motorola KRZR, aren't on the group's list."

This statement is misleading to wrong. The SAR data is submitted to FCC and is in the publicly available file on equipment approval for each model. The required report is difficult to read for the nonexpert, but in the process of reviewing it, FCC extracts the key numbers and puts them in a place that can be found relatively easily.

I posted the following to the USA Today site to clarify this point ans tell the public how to find the data for any model sold (legally) in the US. (Since FCC spends little resources on equipment marketing enforcement, one can never be sure that all models sold are actually legally authorized.):

The article says
"The FCC currently doesn't require handset makers to divulge radiation levels." When FCC decided about 10 years ago to follow a UK precedent and make the information public, it had no money to revise its website to make the information simple to find. Also industry was lobbying strongly against making the information public - actually it always was public but the key number was in an obscure detailed report.

If you can't find the data for a specific phone on a nongovernment website, you can look it up yourself. First find the FCC ID of the cell phone in question. It is often under the battery. Then go to https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/Gene ricSearch.cfmI The first 3 characters go in the first box and then the rest go in the second box. Then hit "Start Search" at the bottom of the page.

When the next screen appears, hit the checkmark icon under "Display Grant". You will get a copy of the FCC approval for that model. Just below the section with 6 columns of data is a statement of the SAR data.
So for the Nokia model with FCC ID PDNRM-421, enter PDN in the first box and then RM-421.

Like many cell phones, this model can transmit on several frequencies so there is different data for each band.

The process is not simple, but it is straightforward. This is how the private sites get their data to make it more usable for the public.

===============================
* By contrast, there is a controversial theory dealing with ionizing (nuclear) radiation called radiation hormesis that states that small doses of such radiation actually improve health. However, I am not aware of anyone supporting a parallel theory for radio radiation.

2009-09-07T15:16:00.003-04:00

IEEE Spectrum
Publishes Article

on

"Radio's Regulatory Roadblocks:

How the FCC slows new wireless technologies - and what to do about it"

The September 2009 Issue of IEEE Spectrum has the above article by Mitchell Lazarus that should be of interest to readers of this blog. Mitchell is a lawyer and a noted practitioner of spectrum policy. He played a key role in Wi-Fi's early regulatory issues.

We agree on many things, but disagree on others. But at this point let me just point others to the article and not bias you by what details I disagree on. You should read it and think about it first.

It may be a helpful reference for those drafting comments to the FCC Innovation Inquiry.

2009-09-04T17:34:00.001-04:00

Welcome Back RCR!

2009-09-04T08:16:00.003-04:00

The Return of the TAC

The Commission's Technological Advisory Council seems to be coming back in a circuitous way. In April the Commission asked for nominations. Then last Monday they asked again.

Interestingly, all traces of the old TAC web page have disappeared recently from the Commission webs site, possibly as a cleanup drive to get ready for the new one.

The stated explanation of the renewed nomination request is

"Concurrent with the establishment of the TAC, the Commission was charged by Congress to develop a plan that seeks to ensure that people of the United States have access to broadband capability. In support of this and related efforts, the Commission is now seeking additional nominations to the TAC to ensure that its membership best serves the needs of the Commission."

Several suggestions for the new TAC, readers are encouraged to comment - after all this is a blog not a magazine.

The Commission has stated "The Council will consist of recognized technical experts in telecommunications and related fields." The previous TAC and its counterpart at NTIA have been overly heavy with representatives from every conceivable party practicing before the Commission with token public representatives. The credentials of some have been questionable other than their employment. A simple and realistic goal would be for at least 50% of the TAC members to have significant peer recognition such as being members of the National Academy of Engineering or Fellow of the IEEE.

Brookings has published a book entitled The Advisers that surveys use of technical advisory committess at several federal agencies. I urge senior commission staff to review this survey and decide which type of advisory committee the Commission really wants. I would urge the Defense Science Board model.

The previous FCC leadership was ambivalent at best on using the TAC for any issue or subissue related to ongoing policy deliberations. Thus the TAC debated vague issues about future problems - none of which had any impact. It can been seen from The Advisers that other regulatory agencies use advisory committees in more substantive ways. Mitchell Lazarus and I recently had an exchange on his blog on whether the TAC should get involved in advising the Commission whether the exponent of the field strength drop from BPL emissions is 2,3, or 4. Mitchell commented,
"Rather than consult the Technological Advisory Committee, I would rather see the FCC technical staff base its recommendations on data from actual, reproducible experiments, whether conducted in public by the FCC itself or submitted from outside."
There are a lot of good things presidential appointees like the 5 FCC commissioners can do but I think the issue of exponents of electromagnetic fields is not one they are good at and their skill in this area was never reviewed at Senate confirmation hearings.

2009-08-27T17:41:00.006-04:00

FCC Begins Inquiry
into
Wireless Innovation
and
Investment

At today's Commission meeting a new NOI was adopted on this topic.

[See update below]

Comment Date: September 28, 2009
Reply Comment Date: October 12, 2009

The news release states

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced a Wireless Innovation and Investment Notice of Inquiry(“NOI”) that seeks to identify concrete steps the Commission can take to support and encourage further innovation and investment in the wireless marketplace. This NOI also seeks to better understand the factors that encourage innovation and investment throughout this area.

Innovation in wireless, an increasingly significant part of the communications sector, can be an engine for near-term economic recoveryand long-term economic growth. In furtherance of this goal, the NOI seeks comment broadly on all ideas that will foster wireless innovation and investment. In particular, the NOI focuses on spectrum availabilityand use, wireless networks, devices, applications, and business practices. The NOI also seeks comment on how the public has used wireless services and technology to solve real-world problems in areas such as health care, energy, education, and public safety.

More generally, the NOI seeks to develop a framework for analyzing wireless innovation and investment, including any metrics or data sources that should be considered. This framework, together with the record developed in response to the Mobile Competition Report NOI adopted today, will serve as a base of knowledge to inform Commission consideration of wireless regulatory issues going forward.

Chmn. Genachowski added,

we seek to identify appropriate and concrete steps the Commission can take to support and encourage further innovation and investment in this area, and to understand better the factors that encourage innovation and investment in wireless.

UPDATE
Revised deadlines

Comments 9/30/09
Replies 10/15/09

ex parte rules now also apply.

2009-08-26T15:58:00.004-04:00

IEEE Publishes Spectrum Inventory Article

My article on practical aspects of implementing change after the pending legislation on a spectrum inventory has been published in IEEE Wireless Communications. Comments are welcome here in the blog.

An excerpt:

Repeated surveys of spectrum occupancy in the U.S have shown large amounts of idle spectrum even in urban areas. This is the inevitable result of spectrum allocations based on peak demands of individual users in areas with uneven terrain and uneven population density. There is reason to believe that the same phenomenon occurs in all other countries although data is not as readily available. Progress in spectrum inventories is necessary to identify how much spectrum is used and how much might be available for new uses. However, an inventory by itself will lead to many further questions and time consuming deliberations unless it is accompanied by progress in defining harmful interference, determining receiver standards or at least expectations, and making the resolution of such issues more transparent so that new entrants can participate.

2009-08-20T19:09:00.007-04:00

MIT Club of Washington Annual Public Seminar Series

Hand-Held Communicators: The Defining Technology for the 21st Century

The MIT Club of Washington is pleased to present its 28th annual Seminar Series on an important national topic related to science and technology. Each year, the series offers engineers, scientists, industry leaders, policy makers, and educators an opportunity to explore a specific topic in depth. Both those within and outside the Washington area MIT community gain the opportunity to develop a better understanding of recent developments and key issues

Presentations by distinguished speakers are followed by ample time for questions and discussion. The social hour and dinner provide additional opportunities to meet the speakers, renew acquaintances, or join in stimulating discussions with other participants.

Hand-held communicators have changed the world as much as any technology since personal computers. Throughout the world people connect to each other, to the internet, and to organizations of all kinds in ways unimaginable only twenty years ago. This revolution, according to some, has just begun and the changes in the future will dwarf those of the last generation. The key questions are: What impacts have hand-held communicators caused to date and what is coming at us in the future? What are the personal consequences of being available 24/7? What are the economic costs and benefits of the seamless blending of work and non-work time? What new industries will blossom in this environment, and which old ones will wither?

PROGRAM

Tuesday, October 13, 2009 : The Future of the Smart Phone
Rob Pegoraro, Technology Columnist, Washington Post

Tuesday, November 10, 2009: The Regulatory Environment for Hand-Held Communications.
Michael J. Marcus , Director, Marcus Spectrum Solutions, former Associate Chief for Technology, FCC

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 : Geospatial Applications
Luc Vincent, Engineering Director, Google

Tuesday, January 12, 2010: Social Networking
Professor Alexander Pentland, Media Lab, MIT

Tuesday, February 9, 2010: The evolution of services and devices in the wireless space
Mark Epstein , Senior Vice President, Development, Qualcomm

Tuesday, March 9, 2010: Operating systems for smart phones
Erick Tseng, Product Manager, Mobile Content and Search, Google

SEMINAR SCHEDULE AND LOCATION

Each session begins at 6:15 PM with a cash bar, followed by dinner at 7:00, and the seminar from approximately 8:00 to 9:30.

The first three sessions of the seminar sessions will be held at the Kenwood Country Club, 5601 River Road, Bethesda, Maryland, the remaining three sessions will be held at Maggiano?s Restaurant at 5333 Wisconsin Ave. in Friendship Heights, MD (directions will be provided to attendees later).

DIRECTIONS TO KENWOOD CC from the Beltway (I-495), use exit 39 River Rd, go east toward Washington, and then go 2.8 miles, at Springfield Drive stoplight turn left into Kenwood CC- free parking in lots left of Clubhouse.
DIRECTIONS from DC, go west on Massachusetts Ave. NW, turn right on Little Falls Parkway and left at River Road; proceed to 5601 and turn right at stoplight into Kenwood Club. For Mass Transit take METRO to Friendship Heights Station, and then a 9 minute ride on the T2 bus that leaves the station at 5:35, 5:57, and 6:15 PM. For driving directions go to www.maps.google.com.

REGISTRATION AND COST INFORMATION

Registration will be accepted for the complete series only, though spaces are transferable for individual sessions. Reservations will be accepted in the order they are received, up to the capacity limit. The series is open to MIT Alumni/ae, their guests and all others interested in the topic. To avoid disappointment from oversubscription, we recommend early response. Federal employees may submit an approved SF 182 for payment.

The subscription cost of the Washington Seminar Series is $298 per person for members of the MIT Club of Washington and their guests, and $330 for non members, which includes dinner for each session. To register, send the form below, with checks payable to "MIT Seminar Series" to:

Mr. Ray Daniels, MIT Seminar Series, 4700 Falstone Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815-5544

You will only be notified in case oversubscription prevents your reservation from being accepted. For additional information, telephone Kenneth Gordon at (301) 469 9240 or e-mail to kengordon@alum.mit.edu.

Online registration using a credit card is available. Go to web site mitdc.org/seminar for instructions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REGISTRATION FORM 2009-2010

____Registration, Public, $330 per person

____Registration, Member, MIT Club of
Washington, $298 per person/guest

____I am enclosing a separate check for $30 payable to the ?MIT Club of Washington? for 2009-2010 dues (Applicable only to MIT alumni/ae)

Enclosed is a check made payable to the MIT Seminar Series for the amount of_______________

Name ________________________________________
Guest ________________________________________
Address __________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
Tel.(H)___________________ B) ______________

e-mail_____________________________________

(legible e-mail is needed for change notices and reminders)

2009-08-10T13:32:00.011-04:00

Lack of Credible Spectrum Marketing Enforcement
Limits
Credible Spectrum Policy Options

I have written previously, in April 2008 and August 2007, on the lack of enforcement at FCC on equipment marketing that is subject to Section 302 of the Communications Act.

Indeed, one post got the following comment from a key staffer at major broadcast trade group:

I think you make some good points about enforcement. The problem is this is an area that is very easy to ignore even with the best of intentions. And, unfortunately, as you note, once devices are out there – you can’t fix the problem.

PS. By the way, you suggest that trade organizations should lobby for enforcement – broadcasters have done just that in the XM and Sirius FM modulator cases. Despite, egregious violations (some devices were over the limit by 45 dB) , it should be noted that not one device was recalled from consumers. (In fact, the FCC quietly permitted a change the way these devices are tested - allowing manufacturers to test in an automobile and to use the shielding of the metal car body for compliance.)

He was talking about the blatant sale by XM and Sirius of satellite receivers for cars with built-in FM transmitters so they could be heard over the normal car radio without any wire connections. NAB alleged that many of such receivers exceed Part 15 emission limits by 6-10 dB raising potential interfere issues at nearby cars in traffic. This behavior, along with parallel allegations that XM and Sirius built terrestrial "fill in" stations for their satellite signals in excess of what FCC authorized, was bizarre for corporations holding billion plus dollar FCC licenses since under the RKO precedent they could be found "to lack the requisite character" to be an FCC licensee and made to forfeit all licenses.

Now most equipment manufacturers and distributors are not major FCC licensees and need not fear the RKO case precedent. But in theory, FCC has lots of remedies to enforce its rules from fines to requests for court injunctions and equipment seizures. It appears that FCC continues to follow the example of Lord Nelson who raised his telescope to his blind eye during the Battle of Copenhagen so that he would not see an order he disagreed with.

It appears that FCC avoided making a finding on the XM and Sirius allegations until their merger made it impossible to ignore. Then FCC signed consent orders with XM and Sirius obligating them to make "voluntary payments" to the Treasury of $17,394,375 and $2,200,000, respectfully. One wonders if this would ever had been resolved had not the merger been forcing the issue?

More recently, FCC has announced a "citation" to The Spy Store, Inc., dated 7/31/09. This firm was selling a GPS jammer! While the ads have disappeared, a trace of them available through Google indicates the marketing pitch was "Our GPS Blocker protects you from GPS vehicle trackers!" While some cheating spouses might want such a unit to enable their liaison travel in the family car, another class of users for such technology would be criminal trying to frustrate policy surveillance.

In any case, it is hard to imagine a more clearly illegal as well as antisocial product!
So what did FCC do about it? Below is a calendar of events derived from the FCC citation:

Chronology of Spy Store/GPS Jammer Enforcement Case (File No. EB-08-SE-602)

(Click on picture for larger view)

It took FCC more than 13 months to realize these devices were being sold, despite a large web presence by the firm and multiple retail stores. One of these is close to the former FCC building at 1919 M St., NW and a casual visitor could quickly realize the equipment not meeting FCC rules were being sold. Then it took 5 months more before FCC sent a Letter of Inquiry to the firm. 5 months later, FCC closed the case with a citation threatening fines if there were repeated occurrences. (Now it is possible FCC acted slowly in this instance because another law enforcement agency with a parallel investigation asked them to do so. I doubt it based on other instances, but it is possible.)

I have dealt in the past with NTIA and IRAC and continue to deal with them on issues of mutual interest. They generally do not fully trust FCC to keep its word on spectrum sharing and mutual interference issues and this type of slow enforcement motion on a band of great importance to them is likely to rejustify their reluctance to share spectrum with FCC regulatees on reasonable terms. Since about 2/3 of the spectrum is either exclusive federal government or shared, this could have a huge impact on FCC regulatees seeking more sharing of generally lightly used federal spectrum.

NAB and MSTV repeatedly stated in Docket 04-186 (TV whitespace) comments that they think FCC will not enforce any whitespace sharing rules adopted. (This is is ironic since a key player in one of these organizations is an FCC veteran who took an active role in discouraging marketing enforcement while at FCC.)

The likely cause of the delay in this enforcement case is probably the micromanagement style of the previous chairman. Senior FCC staff were afraid to take any action, even action for which they had legally delegated authority, without a go ahead from the Chairman's Office, which, of course, was snowed under by other micromanagement issues. There are signals that the new team is trying to clarify these issues and what managers can do without direct approval.

Meanwhile, outsiders can not demand an accounting of the delays in this type of enforcement case. But I hope the 8th Floor and oversight committees do ask the staff to explain how this happened and prevent future occurrences so FCC rule enforcement becomes credible and all policy options can be considered.
==========

A observation on the FCC citation. It starts,

"This is an official CITATION, issued pursuant to Section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Act”), to The Spy Store, Inc. (“Spy Store”) for marketing in the United States unauthorized
radio frequency devices in violation of Section 302(b) of the Act,2and Sections 2.803 and 15.205(a) of the Commission’s Rules (“Rules”), and importing radio frequency devices without filing FCC Form 740 (or the electronic equivalent) with the United States Customs and Border Patrol in violation of Section 2.1203 of the Rules." (Emphasis added.)

It appears that the writer thought CBP stands for "Customs and Border Patrol". Since the 9/11 reforms, U.S. Customs has actually been replaced with "U.S. Customs and Border Protection" = CBP.

2009-08-06T18:45:00.005-04:00

And Now There are 5

For the first time since Inauguration Day there are now 5 commissioners at FCC with the swearing in of Comm Clyburn on August 3.

Comm. Clyburn and Attwell have not publicly announced there staffs yet so maybe things are not fully up to speed.

But hopefully the Commission can start attacking the spectrum policy backlog while working on new issues also.

UPDATE

On 8/7/09 Comm. Baker announced:

Erin A. McGrath will serve as Acting Legal Advisor for wireless, international, and public safety issues. Ms. McGrath most recently served as an Assistant Division Chief in the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau’s Mobility Division, where she managed and was the lead attorney for transactions and post-auction licensing matters. Prior to her position in the Mobility Division, she was an attorney in the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau’s Spectrum and Competition Policy Division and Commercial Wireless Division. Ms. McGrath received her B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania and her J.D. from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

Later on August 7, Comm. Clyburn announced her initial staff appointments:

Renée Roland Crittendon will serve as Chief of Staff and Senior Legal Advisor. In addition to her duties as chief of staff and senior legal advisor, Ms. Crittendon will focus on spectrum, international and public safety matters. Ms. Crittendon has been at the FCC for eight years. She was recently named by Chairman Genachowski as a Deputy Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Prior to that appointment, she served as Chief of Staff and Senior Legal Advisor in the Office of Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein where she was responsible for spectrum, broadband, international and public safety issues.

Before joining the Commissioner’s office in 2007, Ms. Crittendon served as Deputy Bureau Chief in the Wireline Competition Bureau. Prior to that, she was Chief of the Wireline Bureau’s Competition Policy Division. Ms. Crittendon also served as Associate Division Chief of the Mobility Division of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Before joining the Commission, Ms. Crittendon served as Deputy Chief Counsel –Telecommunications for Prism Communication Services, Inc, and was in private practice for several years with a Washington, D.C. law firm specializing in media, wireline and satellite issues. Ms. Crittendon received her law degree from the George Washington University National Law Center and received her undergraduate degree in Economics from Georgetown University where she is a George F. Baker Scholar alumnus and Trustee.

2009-08-04T22:08:00.004-04:00

Om Malik

The GigaOM Interview:
FCC Chairman
Julius Genachowski
on
Mobile, Broadband, iPhone & Innovation

Oddly Chmn. Genachowski granted his first interview on technical policy to the politically connected Om Malik's GigaOM not SpectrumTalk. We are a little insulted, but we will survive. With the bounds of "fair use", here are some tidbits from the interview:

...this commission will be relentlessly focused on competition, consumers, innovation and investment.

...

I have nothing against lawyers — I used to be a lawyer and the FCC needs lawyers — but I’m convinced that for the agency to succeed it is equally important that the FCC to have great engineers, strong economists and people with entrepreneurial backgrounds to be sitting and talking around the tables at the FCC and talking about the kinds of policies will promote the (FCC) objectives I’ve spoken about so far.

...

If you look at the kinds of people we’re bringing in, you will see the mix of backgrounds. There’s a for-hire sign that’s open to innovators and engineers and entrepreneurs who want to be part of the conversation at the FCC.

...

On a high level, I think we need, one, to explore ways to get more spectrum into the market. Secondly, we need to identify ways that we can help drive more efficient uses of spectrum (software, cognitive radio). Third, we need to think big about creative uses of spectrum, creative ways to allocate spectrum.

2009-07-31T17:58:00.012-04:00

Cellular Industry on
Driving and Safety

This post has several excerpts from cellular industry websites. They were all downloaded July 31. If they are hard to read, click on them for a larger version. The top post from the CTIA site says

Safe Driving
CTIA Position
When it comes to using your wireless device behind the wheel, CTIA-The Wireless Association® and the wireless industry believe that safety should always be every driver’s top priority.
Wireless devices are one of the best safety tools drivers can have on the road. Everyday more than 290,000 calls are made from wireless devices to 911 or other emergency services. That’s about 200 calls every minute. More Americans are using their wireless device to report emergencies, prevent crimes and to save lives. While mobile phones can be important safety tools, there’s an appropriate time and an inappropriate time to use them.

On July 29, CTIA issued the following statement:

CTIA–The Wireless Association® Statement on Texting While Driving

July 29, 2009

WASHINGTON, DC – CTIA - The Wireless Association® President and CEO Steve Largent issued the following statement on texting while driving:
“CTIA and our member companies continue to believe text messaging while driving is incompatible with safe driving.

“We support state legislative remedies to solve this issue. But simply passing a law will not change behavior. We also need to educate new and experienced drivers on the dangers of taking their eyes off the road and hands off the wheel.

“CTIA and our members have been working to educate all drivers on the dangers of distracted driving for years now and we hope that people continue to learn more.”
For more information on texting while driving, please visit: www.ctia.org/consumer_info/safety/index.cfm/AID/10369

(Amusingly, as of this writing the indicated link "for more information" just points to a list of all CTIA press releases including this one.) So CTIA is now in favor of laws banning texting while driving. Where are they on laws about cell phone use while driving? Still "neutral"?

Here is an excerpt from the "Safe Driving Brochure" on the CTIA website. It advises not to "take notes or look up numbers while driving". It also advises you to place calls "before pulling into traffic" - does that mean while you are moving?

For reference on major industry players, here is what T-Mobile's website says about driving and cell phone use. Paralleling CTIA it says, "Dial sensibly, place calls when not moving or before pulling into traffic."

Verizon Wireless is more proactive. They announce their support of antitexting legislation. They also state,

"Verizon Wireless broke from the rest of its competitors in the U.S. wireless industry by supporting state-wide hands-free driving laws as early as 2000. Since then, Verizon Wireless has been the only wireless company supporting bans on texting and e-mailing while driving."

So congratulations to VZW for its responsible position on safety.

	Unlicensed to kill: a brief history of the Part 15 rules Kenneth R. Carter (pp. 8-18) View HTML \| View PDF (96 KB) \| Reprints & Permissions
	Wi-Fi and Bluetooth: the path from Carter and Reagan-era faith in deregulation to widespread products impacting our world Michael J. Marcus (pp. 19-35) View HTML \| View PDF (393 KB) \| Reprints & Permissions
	History of wireless local area networks (WLANs) in the unlicensed bands Kevin J. Negus, Al Petrick (pp. 36-56) View HTML \| View PDF (371 KB) \| Reprints & Permissions
	Licence-exempt: the emergence of Wi-Fi Vic Hayes, Wolter Lemstra (pp. 57-71) View HTML \| View PDF (119 KB) \| Reprints & Permissions
	Grazing on the commons: the emergence of Part 15 Henry Goldberg (pp. 72-75) View HTML \| View PDF (50 KB) \| Reprints & Permissions
	Unleashing innovation: making the FCC user-friendly Stephen J. Lukasik (pp. 76-85) View HTML \| View PDF (85 KB) \| Reprints & Permissions
	Has “unlicensed” in Part 15 worked? A case study Tim Pozar (pp. 86-91) View HTML \| View PDF (227 KB) \| Reprints & Permissions