tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-256529782024-02-19T17:52:24.118-05:00SpectrumTalk"If you are an tech uber-geek with a particular affinity for spectrum policy, then you need to be reading the Spectrum Talk blog written by Michael Marcus. Anyone who has closely followed spectrum policy and FCC wireless regulation over the past quarter century will recognize Mike’s name because that’s how long he spent at the FCC covering this stuff." -
www.techliberation.comMJMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07026719682642838870noreply@blogger.comBlogger304125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post-5218806230629030422010-01-31T17:08:00.000-05:002010-01-31T17:08:23.595-05:00SpectrumTalk has moved! Please change you bookmarks & RSS feeds<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCcS7en7ezm2_ZCMQSfUx3ruxl6qniMPGQm3wuNd1JV7pQP9oTPWqdoynn4LXi7llQr4aGccF5fyn-WWzhIYyE3J7HUiiAdlOra1betLJEG8PiObJZ6M13hralddEQoFGYqMVp/s1600-h/moving.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="363" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCcS7en7ezm2_ZCMQSfUx3ruxl6qniMPGQm3wuNd1JV7pQP9oTPWqdoynn4LXi7llQr4aGccF5fyn-WWzhIYyE3J7HUiiAdlOra1betLJEG8PiObJZ6M13hralddEQoFGYqMVp/s640/moving.jpg" width="640" /></a><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">After several years here at Blogspot, a free Google service, <b><i>SpectrumTalk</i></b> is moving over to an updated Marcus Spectrum Solutions website, <a href="http://www.marcus-spectrum.com/">www.marcus-spectrum.com</a></span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">The new URL for the blog is </span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.marcus-spectrum.com/Blog/Blog.html">http://www.marcus-spectrum.com/Blog/Blog.html </a><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">RSS Feed:</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.marcus-spectrum.com/Blog/files/blog.xml">http://www.marcus-spectrum.com/Blog/files/blog.xml</a></span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">The older content will stay here. Some will be ported to the new site as resources permit.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>New posts will only be on the new site.</b> <br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Thanks you, Google, for the hosting in the past. You probably won't miss the traffic.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><span style="font-size: large;">Please <a href="http://marcusspectrum.wufoo.com/forms/z7x4z5/">contact me</a> if you have any problems or any other comments:</span>MJMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07026719682642838870noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post-63424204169289609162010-01-22T15:42:00.000-05:002010-01-22T15:42:31.190-05:00Reboot FCC.gov Update<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://rebootfcc.uservoice.com/forums/37111-data-how-can-the-data-released-on-fcc-gov-data-be/filter/top" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="317" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdszXFcVLja-GovF-GRGhgIWsM90vmdpNe9PC4O0FapbHS15RCj1ucDztv2DLbp2PmE7oqVt3rbjYIu5WpNJ77-2PTxxpW84_1o_1SBcE1JcyI7QfCsJcFWcHxoc1ls5VNmtvN/s400/reboot+vote.jpg" width="400" /></a><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Your Blogger's Suggestions Doing Well</b></span><br />
</div><br />
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">In the voting on the FCC suggestion site, your blogger's suggestions seem to be doing rather well.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">The top suggestions so far deal with the following:</span><br />
</div><ul style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><li>Require at least one FCC Commissioner to be an engineer - 30 votes</li>
<li>Get rid of the BPL - 25 votes</li>
<li>Automatically renew an Amateur Radio License for a full 10 year term when the operator upgrades - 19 votes</li>
<li>Get rid of rules that cannot be enforced such as the GMRS license requirement - 18 votes</li>
</ul><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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 <i>favored</i> BPL<br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">But the next highest vote is the suggestion shown at the top of the pagee. If you agree, could you surf over to the <a href="http://rebootfcc.uservoice.com/forums/37111-data-how-can-the-data-released-on-fcc-gov-data-be/filter/top">website</a>, signin in with either your Facebook/Google/Yahoo etc. account or you can create a new <a href="http://rebootfcc.uservoice.com/users/new">UserVoice</a> account, and consider voting for this suggestion and others you find of value.</span> <span style="font-size: large;"> Better yet, input your own ideas</span><br />
</div><span style="font-size: large;"> I received the following reply from Steve Crowley to a <a href="http://spectrumtalk.blogspot.com/2010/01/cost-of-delay-and-inaction-at-fcc.html">previous blog post</a> which I shall repeat here:</span><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">"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. <br />
<br />
The Petition I am referring to can be found on the proponent's web site:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.trinitynoble.com/pdf/FCC_Petition_4_Rulemaking.pdf">http://www.trinitynoble.com/pdf/FCC_Petition_4_Rulemaking.pdf"</a></span></blockquote><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">This complements well a <a href="http://rebootfcc.uservoice.com/forums/37121-redesign-what-functionality-would-you-like-to-see/suggestions/451583-a-quick-and-clear-way-to-find-the-status-of-every-?ref=title">suggestion by Richard Weil </a>that I have commented on at the FCC site. You might want to support that suggestion also.<br />
</span><br />
</div>MJMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07026719682642838870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post-81101432769441288062010-01-21T13:45:00.000-05:002010-01-21T13:45:50.820-05:00Legislative Action on 2 Spectrum Bills<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibk74fNTtegeaAMCK1Jef-pLx7TPJbwFzo2jhGLjEbQ2ZQx3WbGnRqGb9uvaHhY5r_VFk1zXfOjTmXCi0sOnyD7UeObMDEfJr8R97l6YDoyfOYdHII1kyjrYwKhWju2LsiAc2Y/s1600/House.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibk74fNTtegeaAMCK1Jef-pLx7TPJbwFzo2jhGLjEbQ2ZQx3WbGnRqGb9uvaHhY5r_VFk1zXfOjTmXCi0sOnyD7UeObMDEfJr8R97l6YDoyfOYdHII1kyjrYwKhWju2LsiAc2Y/s640/House.gif" /></a><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet has approved the following 2 spectrum bills:</span><br />
</div><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>HR 3019 Spectrum Relocation Improvement Act of 2009</b> - 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.<br />
<br />
<b>HR 3125 Radio Spectrum Inventory Act</b> - 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.<br />
</blockquote><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9qdeiS5Xdv0QLlqw89GjtGfpR_fUsWuucUr3a5QnZwcVo1kbn_Q2IDw7cDnnmsjeomwhOWVcsmEagG1ZcHApEQirnK-Vt9WTp28dzYUEopFgex27lDoJhp0cgqrjd-GNyE4q1/s1600/Inventory+Booklet+Cover---1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9qdeiS5Xdv0QLlqw89GjtGfpR_fUsWuucUr3a5QnZwcVo1kbn_Q2IDw7cDnnmsjeomwhOWVcsmEagG1ZcHApEQirnK-Vt9WTp28dzYUEopFgex27lDoJhp0cgqrjd-GNyE4q1/s320/Inventory+Booklet+Cover---1.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Interested readers may <a href="http://spectrumtalk.blogspot.com/2009/12/after-spectrum-inventory.html">recall</a> 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.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Backers of the bill: </span><br />
</div><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><ul><li><span style="font-size: large;">What do you think will happen after the inventory is done? <br />
</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: large;">How do you want FCC and NTIA to determine if apparently vacant spectrum can be used without causing harmful interference?</span></li>
</ul></blockquote><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_1264097917734"><br />
</a></span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3019ih.txt.pdf">HR 3019</a> 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 </span><br />
</div><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">‘‘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."<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</blockquote><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div>MJMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07026719682642838870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post-51282817446057622562010-01-15T09:55:00.004-05:002010-01-19T08:42:29.860-05:00Kudos to CTIA and Cellular Industry for Haitian Disaster Response<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg06POVmsuAFV1nQr4n3u44utt5a8Ngf2MCx6bMgdborV9EEdZK3qGRgFZqQUrx9U4GiVTJ-12jED3KtFeTMi7tZiG2QhDbnbulKQ61HcJOma42mm1yrldP9XTPpQ3fTqpXkhtg/s1600-h/ctia+haiti.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg06POVmsuAFV1nQr4n3u44utt5a8Ngf2MCx6bMgdborV9EEdZK3qGRgFZqQUrx9U4GiVTJ-12jED3KtFeTMi7tZiG2QhDbnbulKQ61HcJOma42mm1yrldP9XTPpQ3fTqpXkhtg/s320/ctia+haiti.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><div style="color: red; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Texting Enables Instant Philanthropy</span><br />
</div><br />
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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</span> <span style="font-size: large;">has<a href="http://www.ctia.org/blog/"> raised</a> at least $5,000,000 so far for earthquake relief in Haiti. (As of 5 PM, 1/14)<br />
</span><br />
<br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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 <a href="http://www.att.com/gen/general?wtSlotClick=1-002SFD-0-1&WT.svl=calltoaction&pid=1325">AT&T</a> and <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/186972/tmobile_usa_waives_call_charges_to_and_from_haiti.html">T-Mobile</a> 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.)</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">T-Mobile is going beyond the texting/donation issue by announcing</span><br />
</div><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">"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. <br />
</blockquote><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">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."<br />
</blockquote><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/business/nation/story/1423738.html"><i> The Miami Herald</i></a> reports that AT&T "is donating $50,000 to <a href="http://www.tsfi.org/en/action/emergencies/112-seisme-en-haiti-tsf-deploie-ses-equipes">Telecoms Sans Frontieres</a>, a humanitarian organization that has sent an emergency team with satellite mobile and fixed communications equipment to Haiti". (<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7367135.stm">BBC page on TSF - with videos</a>.)<br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">So our admiration to the cell phone industry for this outstanding job in responding to the disaster in Haiti! </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">--------</span><br />
<div style="color: red; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">UPDATE 1/19/10</span></b><br />
</div><div style="color: red; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</div><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://moconews.net/article/419-haiti-update-16-million-in-donations-pour-in-by-text-message/">mocoNews.Net reports</a> that the amount raised for the Red Cross alone so far is $22M. They add,</span><br />
<blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">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.</span><br />
</blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"> 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.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br />
</div>MJMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07026719682642838870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post-4057191324739576362010-01-14T06:16:00.000-05:002010-01-14T06:16:38.115-05:00Cost of Delay and Inaction at FCC<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-14A1.pdf" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyffFG3wVJ5Rn8mCiLjt1YEg1Oo-vuAAlbONZIcTQB4zWt7mHwN1NcNy9dV-uStmnzwsUFZtOgiCld7FnZhEifTVSbr4eIS8gLFRbdehC0-LDqmjM1fLZl-tcrNXlu__EdXvEz/s320/10-4.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Docket 10-4: "FCC is Finally Moving on Signal Booster Use" <a href="http://urgentcomm.com/policy_and_law/commentary/fcc-signal-booster-20100113/"><span style="font-size: large;"><i>Urgent Communications</i>, 1/13/10</span></a><br />
</b></span><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyffFG3wVJ5Rn8mCiLjt1YEg1Oo-vuAAlbONZIcTQB4zWt7mHwN1NcNy9dV-uStmnzwsUFZtOgiCld7FnZhEifTVSbr4eIS8gLFRbdehC0-LDqmjM1fLZl-tcrNXlu__EdXvEz/s1600-h/10-4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br />
</a><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Here are some excerpts from the <a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-14A1.pdf">public notice</a> initiating this docket: </span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">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.<br />
... <br />
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. <br />
...<br />
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).<br />
...<br />
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.<br />
...<br />
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.<br />
...<br />
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.<br />
</blockquote><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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 <a href="http://files.ctia.org/pdf/filings/FINAL--CTIA--_Jammers_Petition_for_Declaratory_Ruling.pdf">website</a>, 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 <a href="http://rebootfcc.uservoice.com/forums/37111-data-how-can-the-data-released-on-fcc-gov-data-be">this suggestion</a> 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!</span> <br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">We note that the <a href="http://www.npstc.org/index.jsp">NPSTC</a> (a well respected federation of 13 public safety member organizations) <a href="http://www.npstc.org/newsletter/v6issue1.pdf">1/06 <i>Newsletter</i></a> 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 <b>nothing happened</b>.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">The recent PN says</span><br />
</div><blockquote><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">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.<br />
</div></blockquote><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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 <a href="http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020355583">petition</a> 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 <b>lose/lose </b>situation for everyone involved except those making cheap equipment capable of causing interference.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">Of course, </span><i style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">if</i><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"> 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.</span></span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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 <i>problem du jour</i>. So while Docket 10-4 has now started on its way to resolution, we must find a way to prevent future logjams like this.</span> <br />
</div>MJMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07026719682642838870noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post-25740974628151937452010-01-11T10:54:00.000-05:002010-01-11T10:54:17.634-05:00Reboot FCC: Initial Results of Website<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://rebootfcc.uservoice.com/pages/37115-how-could-the-fcc-become-more-efficient-" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSEpVziql3ghQZMYX1650fNbM4yDvvmXyQ4YXbrmtXqIZ62d3vGSuwjpj4vlmmlYSr7codGDpG3z5cHJdXHYZqsj064bkuXz-Q6Tild91rsI_gRjhpWfJt2D9cBOu4yLjjrhHX/s214/reboot.jpg" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: x-large;"><b>Sugg</b><b>estion Scorecard</b></span><br />
</div><a href="https://esupport.fcc.gov/reboot/Reboot-FCC-logo.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br />
</a><br />
<br />
Last week FCC opened the public version of <a href="http://reboot.fcc.gov/">reboot.fcc.gov</a> including <a href="http://rebootfcc.uservoice.com/pages/37115-how-could-the-fcc-become-more-efficient-">a call for suggestions</a> 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.<br />
<br />
In any case, <a href="http://www.sacklunch.net/Latin/V/voxpopulivoxDei.html"><i>vox populi, vox dei</i></a>, 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 <a href="https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/coresWeb/publicHome.do">FRN</a>. That says something about the grassroot approach being used here!<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Spectrum policy is too important to be left to lobbyists and lawyers!</b><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Get involved! <br />
</b><br />
</div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_TFSuKaGDiD_5h9iELHTK517yES8iE04BoArH5SocPftrh7ZkghVVrtPWLy_IzuQ7R3FBBFOfHzBEa66Akg8Nv5vAGnAnQ6zQUjp7CWm2C3XYvhtIACKus4TBEmVUJ5U7FmPG/s1600-h/questions.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_TFSuKaGDiD_5h9iELHTK517yES8iE04BoArH5SocPftrh7ZkghVVrtPWLy_IzuQ7R3FBBFOfHzBEa66Akg8Nv5vAGnAnQ6zQUjp7CWm2C3XYvhtIACKus4TBEmVUJ5U7FmPG/s640/questions.jpg" /></a><br />
</div>MJMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07026719682642838870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post-33178126964913429382010-01-08T13:21:00.000-05:002010-01-08T13:21:15.587-05:002009 Regulatory Review: The Year of Rebuilding and Preparing for New initiatives<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.wirelessdesignmag.com/pdfs/YIW09.pdf" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_rbEYqL6HF5G5Ku8tOKyKPeorfpgd4jcXwJDolXkMMNgJAatr1DCnHA4YlIjERCyopFeFJwcqAbWTT7VC0C7pliFXL5mVmKVepQ9I4MELmBY96JxkBrOk5E_k75VSHMKDzqSl/s320/wireless+design+cover.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b><i>Wireless Design</i> Special Issue Published</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b><i><br />
</i></b></span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: large;">The December 2009 issues of both <i>Wireless Design</i> and <i>ECN</i> (formerly <i>Electronic Component News</i>) contain the insert shown above, "<a href="http://www.wirelessdesignmag.com/pdfs/YIW09.pdf">A Year in Wireless</a>".</span></span><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: large;">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).</span></span><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: large;">An interesting package and recommended reading. </span><b><i><br />
</i></b></span><br />
</div></div>MJMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07026719682642838870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post-29728685520332019662010-01-01T10:46:00.003-05:002010-01-04T18:15:16.254-05:00Origins of Wi-Fi and Bluetooth<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZGm60bc96JnePJs6QLiRAXKGYbSmN1Tj4GNrjn9duuYvhn7eHIl6eUAIlVVL9evxxzD2B9g-CbsclkM68uhLDZFrMBLiZ0rtbi4dNYWjR4_Mq51LWlIXHu5HPY9W8nD4WcyAh/s1600-h/ISM25.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZGm60bc96JnePJs6QLiRAXKGYbSmN1Tj4GNrjn9duuYvhn7eHIl6eUAIlVVL9evxxzD2B9g-CbsclkM68uhLDZFrMBLiZ0rtbi4dNYWjR4_Mq51LWlIXHu5HPY9W8nD4WcyAh/s640/ISM25.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">May 9, 2010 will be the 25th anniversary of the FCC's adoption of the <a href="http://www.marcus-spectrum.com/documents/RandO_81-413.pdf">First Report and Order in Docket 81-413</a> - the rules that laid our the rules that became Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, <a href="http://www.zigbee.org/Products/CertifiedProducts/CertifiedProductsOverview/tabid/463/Default.aspx">Zigbee</a>, 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.</span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">A Dutch team based at <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3VdjRPHRfl8T3-7Fzfr_5dpMEWtwx5sK8Lc2-P1FgDfKFp7Yr2gIwIK_wg_X3diQEe9pMcDFAiKPkrClWK6i2s3F279jP2mfzrS7derXlDFPcDp2vwjjn2dg7-GOjYuoFBUuX/s1600-h/TUDlogo.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3VdjRPHRfl8T3-7Fzfr_5dpMEWtwx5sK8Lc2-P1FgDfKFp7Yr2gIwIK_wg_X3diQEe9pMcDFAiKPkrClWK6i2s3F279jP2mfzrS7derXlDFPcDp2vwjjn2dg7-GOjYuoFBUuX/s320/TUDlogo.gif" /></a>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 <a href="http://www.tbm.tudelft.nl/live/pagina.jsp?id=65889b70-9860-47a8-8662-c7e7f914663e">Vic Hayes</a>, a coauthor of the book, was the founding chair of the group.) The book should be published later this year by Cambridge University Press. </span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.iep.gmu.edu/UnlicensedWireless.php"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></a><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=25652978&postID=2972868552033201966" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.marcus-spectrum.com/images/unlicensedwireless120_000.jpg" /></a></span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQTIWDk7HORxB1ZvTUHx9CqIpZBoo4NFE7E1J5xzOHO7O9F5E9oo-UxC6TcbTO2Ry2avyA9bXv3R3JBbjlWNHVZqC_DkjjD4fwuqEFwXwr79KK_H_LAK8R4PfpMp7ro8biPGGj/s1600-h/fowler.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br />
</a><br />
</div><span style="font-size: large;">The 2008 George Mason University "<a href="http://www.iep.gmu.edu/UnlicensedWireless.php">Unleashing Unlicensed</a>" conference also has a great deal of information on why this decision came about. <a href="http://iep.gmu.edu/documents/Hayes%20and%20Lemstra%20paper.pdf">The paper presented by Vic Hayes and Wolter Lemstra</a> from TU Delft is a good preview of the coming book.</span><br />
<br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">A shorter history, "<a href="http://www.marcus-spectrum.com/documents/economist.pdf">A brief history of Wi-Fi</a>" was published in<i> The Economist </i>in 2004.</span><br />
<br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Some people think this decision was the just FCC reacting in a dilatory way to a petition from industry </span><span style="font-size: large;">- adding no value and just slowing down progress through mindless regulation of technology. <b>It wasn't.</b> While the then Hewlett-Packard initially supported it, all other significant corporate interests at the time were against it. <span style="font-size: small;">(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.)</span><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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. </span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: large;">In occasional posts over the next few months we will review where this decision came from and lessons it offers for the present day.</span><b><span style="font-size: small;"> <br />
</span></b><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQTIWDk7HORxB1ZvTUHx9CqIpZBoo4NFE7E1J5xzOHO7O9F5E9oo-UxC6TcbTO2Ry2avyA9bXv3R3JBbjlWNHVZqC_DkjjD4fwuqEFwXwr79KK_H_LAK8R4PfpMp7ro8biPGGj/s1600-h/fowler.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br />
</a><br />
</div><b style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">"Looking back, it is clear that adoption of these rules was one</span></b> <br />
</blockquote><blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQTIWDk7HORxB1ZvTUHx9CqIpZBoo4NFE7E1J5xzOHO7O9F5E9oo-UxC6TcbTO2Ry2avyA9bXv3R3JBbjlWNHVZqC_DkjjD4fwuqEFwXwr79KK_H_LAK8R4PfpMp7ro8biPGGj/s1600-h/fowler.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQTIWDk7HORxB1ZvTUHx9CqIpZBoo4NFE7E1J5xzOHO7O9F5E9oo-UxC6TcbTO2Ry2avyA9bXv3R3JBbjlWNHVZqC_DkjjD4fwuqEFwXwr79KK_H_LAK8R4PfpMp7ro8biPGGj/s320/fowler.png" /></a><br />
</div><b><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">of the significant achievements of the Reagan FCC</span></span></b><br />
</blockquote><blockquote><b><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> - though I doubt if anyone thought so at the time."</span></span></b> <br />
</blockquote><blockquote><b><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.iep.gmu.edu/documents/FowlerIntro.pdf" style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Mark Fowler, FCC Chairman 1981-87, 4/08</a><br />
</span></b><br />
</blockquote></div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.marcus-spectrum.com/images/unlicensedwireless120_000.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><br />
</a></span><br />
</div>MJMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07026719682642838870noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post-18194609800916231812009-12-28T16:32:00.001-05:002009-12-28T16:33:13.790-05:00A Tribute to Mrs. Viviane Reding<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh11OpsLDnc0x2X26T82BVGmTt542DseNq8IGyt2_puVkPTrDsLUer9UMDNgSOOalg9pZD9hMf55HJ855Oi7sN1Wei-VE-mKZi41uYzxwZYhcrKoWdXVxYL65H2AVvdEudll7pk/s1600-h/reding.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh11OpsLDnc0x2X26T82BVGmTt542DseNq8IGyt2_puVkPTrDsLUer9UMDNgSOOalg9pZD9hMf55HJ855Oi7sN1Wei-VE-mKZi41uYzxwZYhcrKoWdXVxYL65H2AVvdEudll7pk/s320/reding.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="color: red;">Outgoing European Commissioner for Information Society and Media (2004-2009)</span><br />
</span></b><br />
<br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">"Strong competition and a functioning single market work in the best interests of European citizens and consumers.</span></b>"<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/09/551&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en" style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">(11/23/09)</a></span><br />
</div><br />
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">On January 1, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viviane_Reding">Viviane Reding</a>, 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon_Treaty">Treaty of Lisbon</a> 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.)</span><br />
<br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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 <a href="http://www.cept.org/">CEPT</a> as the primary forum of national regulators and at the EC level with <a href="http://rspg.groups.eu.int/consultations/index_en.htm">RSPG</a> 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.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.marcus-spectrum.com/images/Reding1006b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="171" src="http://www.marcus-spectrum.com/images/Reding1006b.jpg" width="200" /></a></span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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 <a href="http://www.wbs.warwick.ac.uk/news/releases/2008/12/31/Prof/Martin/Cave">Martin Cave</a>. <span style="font-size: small;">(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.)</span></span><br />
</div><blockquote><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> "This is why (EC) President Barroso and I have proposed a 'Digital Agenda for Europe' to make sure that Europe focuses on:</span><br style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;" /><br style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;" /><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> * the industries and applications that have the potential to lift Europe's performance and</span><br style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;" /><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> * the prominent place and role of consumers in this new environment"<a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/09/524">.</a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/09/524">(11/12/09)</a></span></span></b> <br />
</div></blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">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 </span><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/transport/galileo/index_en.htm" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">Galileo</a><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"> 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.</span></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">"ICT also contributes macro-economically to productivity growth and</span><br style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;" /><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> increased competitiveness of the European economy as a whole,</span><br style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;" /><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> and thus is a factor in growth and job creation." -- <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2006/com2006_0334en01.pdf">COM(2006) 334</a></span></b><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">I hope FCC and other regulators learn from her legacy.</span></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.marcus-spectrum.com/images/Reding1006b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br />
</a><br />
</div><br />
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Nim-8E_aUFk&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Nim-8E_aUFk&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object><br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;"><b>European Telecoms and Media Commissioner Viviane Reding delivering the 2009 Ludwig Erhard lecture at the Lisbon Council in Brussels. </b><br />
</div>MJMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07026719682642838870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post-28486478716268213532009-12-25T12:04:00.002-05:002009-12-26T17:47:07.914-05:00Will Free Wi-Fi Become the Norm?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTAl9-zFfPkpAHWDvKOQQfuFsWBrEGIXMlQvjuyKe0pG-6VCQnzjQ3WudJIkM8tWrpXDdUamjoha_5TcT6mboq-q6RktvZGshPv4m48hOVS7lYBL0udWP7RfZienaQtUZ1zKYL/s1600-h/Magid.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTAl9-zFfPkpAHWDvKOQQfuFsWBrEGIXMlQvjuyKe0pG-6VCQnzjQ3WudJIkM8tWrpXDdUamjoha_5TcT6mboq-q6RktvZGshPv4m48hOVS7lYBL0udWP7RfZienaQtUZ1zKYL/s320/Magid.gif" /></a><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Larry Magid of CBS News and the <i>San Jose Mercury News </i>had an interesting <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/23/scitech/pcanswer/main6016348.shtml">post on CBS News</a> 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<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/15/business/main5983891.shtml?source=related_story"> announcement</a> of free Wi-Fi starting in January.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">I also note that AT&T Mobility CEO Ralph de la Vega has <a href="http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/t-femtocells-not-ready-deployment-yet/2009-12-22">said</a> 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.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">So as we approach the 25th anniversary next year of the </span><a href="http://www.marcus-spectrum.com/SSHistory.htm" style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">Docket 81-413</a><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"> 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?</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="color: red; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">UPDATE</span> <br />
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"> <i>Wired</i>: </span></span> <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/12/26/wired.ford.wi.fi/index.html"><span style="font-size: large;">Ford is making its cars into mobile Wi-Fi hot spots.</span></a>MJMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07026719682642838870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post-34703045990433268342009-12-22T12:15:00.000-05:002009-12-22T12:15:34.837-05:00Multiplex DTV European Style<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.digitalspy.com/terrestrial/mux/" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIIvo609i2kNzL6bJ8CNbPcJwhjxPwXvRGmJIfz4hFyTccqkn2eR3UnfBwOWUHWwUkcqoIwjOdtOWGsR1BavhnahNfB1cPw4LmaPpuUxUvPR6_4Q3QLGG2ce8P7zVp-uuSfxbo/s320/mux.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: x-large;"><b>A Primer on an Alternative Path for DTV</b></span><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">The FCC 12/2/09 public notice on "<a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2518A1.pdf">Data Sought on Uses of Spectrum</a>" raised the following issue, </span><br />
</div><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">"There <i>may</i> 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."<br />
</span><br />
</blockquote><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atsc">ATSC</a> 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. </span><br />
</div><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8VSB">8-VSB</a> uses a high speed 6 MHz signal with 11 million broadband signals/s so each group of bits is sent sequentially. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OFDM">OFDM </a>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.)</span><br />
</blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjx9l7F9vRpI1oqUaxWk1Mn0ZEfChRxl_kaw3EJUSclTggcclc1XfDZvFAWz-pKL2nW-y4z3HkqYTilK9bnogFvcpLMu_1KRjoNvNAdXrI7b2OqknHqzXkQMt_wfUpTj6EbIdoW/s1600-h/560px-Digital_broadcast_standards.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjx9l7F9vRpI1oqUaxWk1Mn0ZEfChRxl_kaw3EJUSclTggcclc1XfDZvFAWz-pKL2nW-y4z3HkqYTilK9bnogFvcpLMu_1KRjoNvNAdXrI7b2OqknHqzXkQMt_wfUpTj6EbIdoW/s640/560px-Digital_broadcast_standards.svg.png" /></a><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"> <br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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 "<b>d</b>igital <b>t</b>errestrial <b>T</b>V" ). Ofcom has no position on this US domestic issue:</span><br />
</div><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The DTT platform in the UK comprises six multiplexes. The BBC and <a href="http://www.arqiva.com/products-and-services/terrestrial-solutions">Arqiva</a> 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.<br />
<br />
Information on the programme services carried on each multiplex is available at <a href="http://www.dmol.co.uk/">www.dmol.co.uk</a>: 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.<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2009/11_november/16/freeview.shtml">www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2009/11_november/16/freeview.shtml</a>.<br />
<br />
More information on the multiplex reorganisation and capacity allocation process for HD services on DTT is available on our website at <a href="http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radiocomms/digital/hd_on_dtt">www.ofcom.org.uk/radiocomms/digital/hd_on_dtt</a>.’</span><br />
</blockquote><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">A senior source at Arqiva recommends Chapter 4 and 8 of Ofcoms's "<a href="http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/dttfuture/dttfuture.pdf">The Future of Digital Terrestrial Television - Enabling new services for viewers</a>" 2007 consultation (NOI) as a good summary of present and future plans for DTV in the UK.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Note that the UK has started an evolution from <a href="http://www.dvb.org/technology/fact_sheets/DVB-T-Fact-Sheet.0709.pdf">DVB-T</a> to <a href="http://www.dvb.org/technology/fact_sheets/DVB-T2-Fact-Sheet.0409.pdf">DVB-T2</a> 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.)<br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">A parallel issue to channel modulation is digital coding. ATSC started with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2">MPEG-2</a> picture coding, but now supports <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC">H.264/MPEG-4 AVC</a>. Europe is actively pursuing MPEG-4 to increase the capacity of existing multiplexes.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Ofcom Future of DTT report, cited above, says (p. 5-6)</span><br />
</div><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">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.<br />
</span> <br />
</blockquote><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">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.<br />
</span> <br />
</blockquote><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">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.<br />
</span> <br />
</blockquote><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>The introduction of these two technologies could, if combined, increase the capacity of a multiplex by up to 160%.</b> 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)</span><br />
</blockquote><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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.</span><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.marcus-spectrum.com/images/EifLib_000.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://www.marcus-spectrum.com/images/EifLib_000.jpg" width="120" /></a><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: xx-small;">It isn't that far away!</span><br />
</div>MJMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07026719682642838870noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post-73342403183669159352009-12-21T15:33:00.005-05:002009-12-25T15:26:50.654-05:00NYT's David Pogue Takes on VZW<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgH9il33dhvK1M5SIxy0zvQ0bx_5JO8_atTVD0_qhJHxzFEunm0A4etyhgKmCiNkVJdbnmY5nUdA2wcrqnzaT71omGhcPVZpFrupVSGSmQ380HPUxbmk5XVxKEXM68vPivT-EpG/s1600-h/pogue_headshot.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgH9il33dhvK1M5SIxy0zvQ0bx_5JO8_atTVD0_qhJHxzFEunm0A4etyhgKmCiNkVJdbnmY5nUdA2wcrqnzaT71omGhcPVZpFrupVSGSmQ380HPUxbmk5XVxKEXM68vPivT-EpG/s320/pogue_headshot.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">I always find David's writing on new technology both informative and humorous.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">But he has taken an interesting position in the telecom policy area by locking horns with Verizon Wireless.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">As he says in <a href="http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/verizon-responds-to-consumer-complaints/?emc=eta1">today's <i>NY Times</i></a>,</span><br />
</div><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">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).<br />
<br />
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.)<br />
</blockquote><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">VZW has finally responded, after requesting a delay, and he calls <a href="http://wireless.fcc.gov/releases/12182009VerizonLetter.pdf">their response</a> "outrageous". So read for yourself and see what you think of the VZW response to this matter.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Pogue ends with this line,</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br />
</div><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">"In short, the headline for this entire episode might as well be:<br />
</blockquote><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b>'Verizon to FCC and Customers: Go Soak Your Heads.'</b> "<br />
</blockquote><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">An odd PR move from a cellular company that is pressing FCC to reallocate 800 MHz! </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">=====</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">A Pogue Video with links to others:<br />
</span><br />
</div><br />
<object height="295" width="480"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9F8ngfR5Ro0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9F8ngfR5Ro0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object><br />
<br />
<div style="color: red; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Updates</b></span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">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.<br />
=========<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/clyburn/images/mc.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/clyburn/images/mc.jpg" width="177" /></a><br />
</div><a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295371A1.pdf"><b>Comm. Clyburn's 12/23/09 Statement on VZW Letter</b></a><br />
An excerpt:<br />
<blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><b> "</b>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.<br />
</blockquote><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">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."<br />
</blockquote><a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2009-12-23/verizon-answers-unsatisfying-fcc-s-clyburn-says-update1-.html"><i> Business Week</i>/Bloomberg coverage</a><br />
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marvin-ammori/mignon-clyburn-to-verizon_b_402600.html"> Huffington Post coverage</a><br />
<a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/fcc-commissioner-slams-verizon-on-350-etfs.ars"> ars technica coverage</a><br />
<br />
<b> </b><br />
<br />
</div>MJMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07026719682642838870noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post-73692531354833542112009-12-20T15:07:00.000-05:002009-12-20T15:07:51.635-05:00FCC Hiring Associate Managing Director New Media None Too Soon<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKVUtWS__1f99EwtV8ZORUoj9ZHu2YvD7LFrs3Hyr47GUKDwWKXuRfCIJRWlkK87lP_tuwWg4gXMutAVsApzm2alrI_tm60TdTq_ZI7qEM4SLBEcXoVgLKZOKOayk1Q1QQ5swU/s1600-h/vacancy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKVUtWS__1f99EwtV8ZORUoj9ZHu2YvD7LFrs3Hyr47GUKDwWKXuRfCIJRWlkK87lP_tuwWg4gXMutAVsApzm2alrI_tm60TdTq_ZI7qEM4SLBEcXoVgLKZOKOayk1Q1QQ5swU/s640/vacancy.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">The above job posting, DEU-OMD-2010-0008, can be found on the FCC website. The job description reads </span><br />
</div><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">"As the Associate Managing Director New Media, the incumbent is charged with managing the Agency's new media efforts <b>including responsibility for the Commission's web design</b>, 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)</span><br />
</blockquote><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Finally, since you have gotten this far on the web site, note that there are no vacancies listed for <b>any </b>entry level employees, engineers or otherwise</span><span style="font-size: large;">. This no doubt means that FCC has yet to start any college campus recruiting. This is <a href="http://spectrumtalk.blogspot.com/2006/08/engineer-staffing-and-recruiting-at.html">not the first time</a> I have written about recruiting at FCC. </span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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 <a href="http://spectrumtalk.blogspot.com/2009/02/learning-from-past-it-rarely-happens-at.html">odd staffing decisions </a>during the Reagan years when year after year hiring was deferred. We are now seeing the inevitable consequences of not hiring then.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; font-size: large;">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.</span>MJMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07026719682642838870noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post-6933523497500670822009-12-16T10:46:00.001-05:002009-12-16T10:48:37.972-05:00House Hearing on the Radio Spectrum Inventory Act and Spectrum Relocation Improvement Act<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibk74fNTtegeaAMCK1Jef-pLx7TPJbwFzo2jhGLjEbQ2ZQx3WbGnRqGb9uvaHhY5r_VFk1zXfOjTmXCi0sOnyD7UeObMDEfJr8R97l6YDoyfOYdHII1kyjrYwKhWju2LsiAc2Y/s1600-h/House.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibk74fNTtegeaAMCK1Jef-pLx7TPJbwFzo2jhGLjEbQ2ZQx3WbGnRqGb9uvaHhY5r_VFk1zXfOjTmXCi0sOnyD7UeObMDEfJr8R97l6YDoyfOYdHII1kyjrYwKhWju2LsiAc2Y/s640/House.gif" /></a><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"> The witnesses were:</span><br />
</div><ul style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><li> Michael Calabrese, Vice President and Director, Wireless Future Program, New America Foundation</li>
<li> Dale Hatfield, Adjunct Professor, Interdisciplinary Telecommunications Program, University of Colorado at Boulder<br />
</li>
<li> Ray O. Johnson, Ph.D., Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, Lockheed Martin Corporation</li>
<li> The Honorable Steve Largent, President and CEO, CTIA - The Wireless Association</li>
<li> The Honorable Gordon H. Smith, President and CEO, National Association of Broadcasters</li>
<li> Thomas Stroup, Chief Executive Officer, Shared Spectrum Company<br />
</li>
</ul><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Their <a href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1857:hr-3125-the-radio-spectrum-inventory-act-and-hr-3019-the-spectrum-relocation-improvement-act-of-2009&catid=134:subcommittee-on-communications-technology-and-the-internet&Itemid=74">prepared statements</a> , along with with Chairman Waxman's initial statement, are on the website of the parent House Committee on Energy and Commerce.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">New America's Michael Calabrese, a client of your blogger from time to time, was kind enough to cite several times "<a href="http://www.newamerica.net/files/nafmigration/Marcus_IssueBrief26_SharingGovtSpectrum.pdf">New Approaches to Private Sector Sharing of Federal Government Spectrum</a>", a report he commissioned that showed that spectrum sharing of federal spectrum would be much more effective for all parties involved if<i> future</i> federal systems were designed with sharing in mind and preemption for emergencies.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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."</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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:</span><br />
</div><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">"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."<br />
</blockquote><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">He also raised concerns about</span><br />
</div><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">"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." <br />
</blockquote><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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?</span><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ms_mil_xpnd_gd_zs&idim=country:USA&q=military+spending+gdp" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKOEsvoKl4RXccJvfizEVnyop45fe-MywO7Lm4Il9feTLgeJMBY5-6DBLWxim6N01xJ78GjUxUUC1t1rl3yhZDScO33ASb01Q-Zy8RBU7wd9dRXUIReLMCW94sIX5Kaz4B15N9/s320/mil+gdp.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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.)</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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 <a href="http://spectrumtalk.blogspot.com/2009/12/comparing-benefits-of-spectrum-used-for.html">FCC PN on "Use of Spectrum"</a>.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">On this topic of inventory, there is a lively <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers&discussionID=10961740&gid=1358787&commentID=9402659&trk=view_disc">discussion</a> going on now in the Linkedin's Spectrum Experts group (I am a member but I did not select <i>this</i> name). Here is a recent contribution from Saul Friedner of UK's <a href="http://www.mottmac.com/">Mott MacDonald</a> consulting group, reprinted with his kind permission:</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file46420.pdf" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXEQJ4rVesgBTVXGagfpAEwA-V8Q_nbfmbAZWW8ObUbvQdOYJQaEZws_diPiCtXItAQegnP2y9qPkX13q1O_e8B6XLAQf1g4RZtCLJFwjkMBmDWvSD6Lishmi8lc6mqODlIUKx/s320/Uk+rep.jpg" /></a><br />
</div>"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.<br />
<br />
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 <span id="goog_1260972337970"></span><a href="http://www.spectrumaudit.org.uk%20/">www.spectrumaudit.org.uk </a><span id="goog_1260972337971"></span><br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://www.ofcom.org.uk/">www.ofcom.org.uk</a><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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:<br />
1) Spectrum becomes available in the most efficient way<br />
2) The spectrum identified as 'potentially difficult' to allocate or assign <i>i.e.</i> adjacent to military/public safety bands become the first barrier to overcome, therefore becoming easier as the inventory develops."<br />
</blockquote>MJMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07026719682642838870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post-36885943477012967422009-12-15T17:03:00.000-05:002009-12-15T17:03:32.466-05:00FCC Alums in Germany Write About Novel Spectrum Policy Alternatives<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.wik.org/content/diskus/diskus_326.pdf" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidDv8TGZ0Put_qOkefheqtJbZK5PFqdtaM-98JRICzvGTRIg8VFy4y5NhZjDvd-sLOkRTocSAMDq8U_4dwqoUja6z7ztaq7eA4CuzXiU_idXNok6IR4uat6fv7ljqGy8ZN14dy/s400/carter+rpt.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Two of my former FCC colleagues, Ken Carter and Scott Marcus (not a relative) have worked in WIK [<i>Wissenschaftliches Institut für Kommunikationsdienste </i>/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 "<a href="http://www.wik.org/content/diskus/diskus_326.pdf">Next Generation Spectrum Regulation for Europe: Price-Guided Radio Policy</a>".</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Here is a summary of the paper:</span><br />
</div><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">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.</span> <br />
</blockquote><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">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.</span> <br />
</blockquote><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">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.</span><br />
</blockquote><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">While I disagree with the degree they think "<a href="http://www.marcus-spectrum.com/TragedyoftheCommons.htm">tragedy of the commons</a>" 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.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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. </span><br />
</div>MJMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07026719682642838870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post-52219486485841191282009-12-12T12:33:00.001-05:002009-12-12T12:34:19.943-05:00<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.logisticsociety.com/literature.htm" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9qdeiS5Xdv0QLlqw89GjtGfpR_fUsWuucUr3a5QnZwcVo1kbn_Q2IDw7cDnnmsjeomwhOWVcsmEagG1ZcHApEQirnK-Vt9WTp28dzYUEopFgex27lDoJhp0cgqrjd-GNyE4q1/s320/Inventory+Booklet+Cover---1.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><div style="color: red; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>After the </b></span><br />
</div><div style="color: red; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Spectrum Inventory ...</b></span><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">The <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.649:">legislation</a> for a spectrum inventory is gaining momentum and hearings will be held shortly. This week I sent a <a href="http://tinyurl.com/y85hrdr">paper</a> to the NTIA Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee on what is likely to happen after the spectrum inventory is completed. My prediction: <b>gridlock</b>.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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 "<a href="http://spectrumtalk.blogspot.com/2008/12/harmful-interference-definitional.html">harmful interference</a>" 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.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Otherwise the inventory will likely be, in the words of the Bard of Avon:</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>... a tale<br />
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,<br />
Signifying nothing.</b></span> <br />
</div>MJMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07026719682642838870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post-92015625175747556322009-12-10T16:06:00.003-05:002009-12-11T17:12:49.893-05:00<div style="color: red; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">Other Publications Chime in </span></b><br />
</div><div style="color: red; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">on Recent Topics</span></b><br />
</div><br />
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">This week, two other, larger publications have discussed recent topics you read about in <i>SpectrumTalk</i> . (Oddly, <i>Broadcasting & Cable</i> remains silent on the 12/2/09 <a href="http://spectrumtalk.blogspot.com/2009/12/comparing-benefits-of-spectrum-used-for.html">FCC Public Notice</a> on use of broadcast spectrum.)</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMctQD0FGSzsQrryTmFgKRw1KXI30DX8iixCXOS3Mr6oUHaz2s637I9t8bRUSahnNA-T4QPlCzqCerVE-t-dSiiIsabuG5cpQwZ0iSsR8ebMP_gcV2Kq1g3v1Wsh_1WgTftx9t/s1600-h/WSJ_Logo.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMctQD0FGSzsQrryTmFgKRw1KXI30DX8iixCXOS3Mr6oUHaz2s637I9t8bRUSahnNA-T4QPlCzqCerVE-t-dSiiIsabuG5cpQwZ0iSsR8ebMP_gcV2Kq1g3v1Wsh_1WgTftx9t/s200/WSJ_Logo.png" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglKYUAqX8ylzUc8GjA7D2zHuuhv4ImPki2H2wlefU64P86pzJ9Zh7NnjH-Kpz2d9TBpT74GjE06HoPW6UwKrIG5W2hSNUsrJzsa62xJGZlLni47d8LzGakGlq0MUpuLiQLghaB/s1600-h/wsj.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglKYUAqX8ylzUc8GjA7D2zHuuhv4ImPki2H2wlefU64P86pzJ9Zh7NnjH-Kpz2d9TBpT74GjE06HoPW6UwKrIG5W2hSNUsrJzsa62xJGZlLni47d8LzGakGlq0MUpuLiQLghaB/s320/wsj.gif" /></a></span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Wall Street Journal had an <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703558004574583750148917092.html">oped</a> yesterday entitled "The Rabbit-Ear Wars" by Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. It begins,</span><br />
</div><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">"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.<br />
<br />
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."<br />
</blockquote><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Jenkins describes the basic situation, but goes on to say,</span><br />
</div><blockquote><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">"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."<br />
</div></blockquote><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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 <a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-228552A1.pdf">OPP Working Paper 38</a>. They proposed</span><br />
</div><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-228552A1.pdf" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib4Q-eXduCykhCjD_3ra1BfAcNkW34acp5fPbsudKyo4wjaNtcJej7DKtJXuKwdxDkG6gCI7Tr9-vsbWR-vIKXQRxrZiQxtlomQKjiVAD3rAXDRVgPn_7_R9mBFRB0aVrLXKk_/s200/OPP38.jpg" /></a>"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."<br />
</blockquote><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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.<br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAz8o6EOOY4Z1zcd3i32ytxNTi1TNbHp6jxS7DhmZB4bMuPgjIzPFKjGddOFNEk25PYczo438gOXM8nJcze2ZXbiYiLjhSF_VzzJs_iknzV9z4KtLj_UNcub3ULJEHkdMzmJXN/s1600-h/CED-Cover-1109.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAz8o6EOOY4Z1zcd3i32ytxNTi1TNbHp6jxS7DhmZB4bMuPgjIzPFKjGddOFNEk25PYczo438gOXM8nJcze2ZXbiYiLjhSF_VzzJs_iknzV9z4KtLj_UNcub3ULJEHkdMzmJXN/s320/CED-Cover-1109.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Next, the somewhat more obscure <i>CED</i> magazine, "The Premier Magazine of Broadband Technology", published an article by FCC alum Jeff Krauss entitled "<a href="http://cedmagazine.com/Article-Capital-Currents-Jamming-Cell-Phone-Signals-120109.aspx">Jamming Cell Phone Signals</a>". 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,</span><br />
</div><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">"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."<br />
</blockquote><span style="font-family: times new roman;">======= <br />
</span><br />
<div style="color: red; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>UPDATE <span style="font-size: x-small;">12/11/09</span><br />
</b></span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Having got its marching orders from NAB, <i>Broadcasting & Cable</i> is now talking about the spectrum proposal:</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/439854-NAB_Use_Airwaves_To_Fight_Potential_Spectrum_Grab.php"><b>NAB: Use Airwaves To Fight Potential Spectrum Grab</b></a> </span><br />
</div><blockquote><span style="font-family: times new roman;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">"According to a copy obtained by <i>B&C </i>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." "</span></span><br />
</span><br />
</blockquote><span style="font-family: times new roman;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman;"><br />
</span>MJMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07026719682642838870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post-16002563431705178162009-12-09T08:28:00.003-05:002009-12-11T09:01:39.630-05:00<div style="color: red; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Who Reads <i>SpectrumTalk</i>?</b></span><br />
</div><div style="color: red; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirjoxI3_o-7E4cnmAcbiCfqzXsVmk8P5V4iaELLj2Go1zZVX_VsoW4CNP4WZ_56aq_xSdQAdUNQNydtdV_HuGjSsRAcGrFWEpT3EWpb3yCWkn0mE5zR7k7L5hsJ5lArdAcl9z0/s1600-h/map.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirjoxI3_o-7E4cnmAcbiCfqzXsVmk8P5V4iaELLj2Go1zZVX_VsoW4CNP4WZ_56aq_xSdQAdUNQNydtdV_HuGjSsRAcGrFWEpT3EWpb3yCWkn0mE5zR7k7L5hsJ5lArdAcl9z0/s640/map.jpg" /></a><br />
</div>It has been about a year since we started tracking the location of our readers using the free services of <a href="http://www.clustrmaps.com/index.htm">ClustrMaps </a>. About is a map of where viewers have been coming from.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXChKZGqKDHdSlvTFnJZXqPNcLvvHucloshrzS1NEt8E6bpgmOQff43mcaznUVm5AHE5MZDBsx-bV_HJMoHIA_Ad8J1Um5-I8Swa7ZYaWo7gRCea5iibPTVpG6qaWMtVVeFJeA/s1600-h/totals.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXChKZGqKDHdSlvTFnJZXqPNcLvvHucloshrzS1NEt8E6bpgmOQff43mcaznUVm5AHE5MZDBsx-bV_HJMoHIA_Ad8J1Um5-I8Swa7ZYaWo7gRCea5iibPTVpG6qaWMtVVeFJeA/s400/totals.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><br />
US readers are concentrated on the East Coast, but there are several 1000+ points west of the Mississippi.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
In any, thank you faithful readers and best wishes for the Holiday Season!<br />
=========<br />
<div style="color: red; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><b>UPDATE</b><br />
</div><div style="color: red; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</div>Cayman Islands Mystery <a href="http://spectrumtalk.blogspot.com/2009/12/who-reads-spectrumtalk-it-has-been.html">Solved</a>!<br />
(It's the local "FCC")MJMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07026719682642838870noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post-89259372453577825182009-12-07T07:55:00.005-05:002009-12-13T10:59:54.252-05:00<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRkpVFS6CgiEkmn8LqZEn9Ij1c6DSh_Gz_fj8jBpVpHII2IpaJjT0xwQ3HpUpNzpZh0EdofHJcNXpg0tlnIQVGPKy5j7JcI4cKasH9g8j0h_hg-uE3anmlbDEOM_3sVfoxLMZI/s1600-h/driving.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRkpVFS6CgiEkmn8LqZEn9Ij1c6DSh_Gz_fj8jBpVpHII2IpaJjT0xwQ3HpUpNzpZh0EdofHJcNXpg0tlnIQVGPKy5j7JcI4cKasH9g8j0h_hg-uE3anmlbDEOM_3sVfoxLMZI/s320/driving.jpg" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: x-large;"><b><span style="color: red;">Unintended Consequences: </span><i style="color: red;">NY Times</i><span style="color: red;"> on History of Cellular Driving Safety Issue</span></b></span><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Yesterday's <i>NY Times</i> has an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/technology/07distracted.html?emc=eta1">article</a> on "who knew what when" on the issue of cellular/texting use while driving. It starts with this anecdote:</span><br />
</div><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">"<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Cooper_%28inventor%29">Martin Cooper</a>, who developed the first portable cellphone, recalled testifying before a Michigan state commission about the risks of talking on a phone while driving. <br />
</span><br />
</blockquote><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Common sense, said Mr. Cooper, a Motorola engineer, dictated that drivers keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel. <br />
</span><br />
</blockquote><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Commission members asked Mr. Cooper what could be done about risks posed by these early mobile phones. <br />
</span><br />
</blockquote><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">'There should be a lock on the dial,” he said he had testified, “so that you couldn’t dial while driving.'</span><br />
</blockquote><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">It was the early 1960s" </span><br />
</blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">The article also quotes <a href="http://www.boblucky.com/">Bob Lucky</a>, one of Bell Labs' superstars and founding chairman of the FCC's Technological Advisory Council (TAC):</span><br />
</div><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;">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.</span><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;">“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.</span><br />
</div></blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;">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.<br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;">========== <br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">UPDATE</span><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;">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 "<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/opinion/13sun3.html?emc=eta1">Turn Car On; Turn Phone Off</a>":<br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;"> <br />
</div><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">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.</span> <br />
</blockquote><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> One ad from 1984 shows a bigwig driver on the phone and tellingly asks, “Can your secretary take dictation at 55 m.p.h.?”</span> <br />
</blockquote><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">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.</span> <br />
</blockquote><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> 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.</span> <br />
</blockquote><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">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.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">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.</span> <br />
</blockquote><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">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.</span> <br />
</blockquote><blockquote><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
</div><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"> 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</span>. </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span><br />
</div></blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;"><br />
</div>MJMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07026719682642838870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post-81167199286070233222009-12-05T15:14:00.001-05:002009-12-05T15:15:51.725-05:00<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/baker/baker.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/baker/baker.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><div style="color: red; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker</span><br />
</div><div style="color: red; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"> Speaks on </span><br />
</div><div style="color: red; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Spectrum Policy</span><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;">On December 3, Comm. Baker gave a speech entitled "<a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294998A1.pdf">A Spectrum Management Framework</a>" to <a href="http://www.phoenix-center.org/">The Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies</a> 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.<br />
<br />
Her key points were :<br />
</div><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><div style="text-align: left;">"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.<br />
</div></blockquote><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><div style="text-align: left;">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.<br />
</div></blockquote><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><div style="text-align: left;">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<br />
technical advisors and other spectrum experts and the adoption of policies that foster further innovation."<br />
</div></blockquote><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;">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.)<br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;">The key policy challenge for FCC <b>and</b> 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?<br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;">She fully supports the <a href="http://www.comsoc.org/livepubs/pci/public/2009/aug/wcispectrum.html">spectrum inventory</a> concept<br />
</div><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><div style="text-align: left;">"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."<br />
</div></blockquote><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;"><a href="http://spectrumtalk.blogspot.com/2009/07/spectrum-inventory-bill-moving-through.html">I support it also</a>. 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 <a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-66A1.pdf">Docket 09-157 NOI</a> asked some key questions in this area (para. 34-37). It states<br />
</div><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><div style="text-align: left;">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.<br />
</div></blockquote><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;">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 <i>status quo</i> and they don't realize that it will prevent the inventory from having much impact.<br />
</div>MJMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07026719682642838870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post-22901042227012674902009-12-03T13:57:00.004-05:002009-12-04T10:59:40.103-05:00<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2518A1.pdf" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjI4C9c6jFqEC1JDneZaLfyrjr7qAeIJsO8xvpXO72QXB70S4aRuN7uCgkS27T2RL_TKtY6GYhSWXP0X1gugosj7oA4q6CEI9kZXynAYdkmDqswAkCbEsLc-EOcArwfdaj19sCC/s200/FCC+PN.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><div style="color: red; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>"Comparing the benefits of spectrum used for over-the-air television broadcasting and those of spectrum used for wireless broadband services"</b></span><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">"It is a bit of a mystery to me why we can't explore the idea </span><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">that broadcasters might want to sell their spectrum</span><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">and that we have to close that dialogue down"- <a href="http://www.nextgov.com/web_headlines/wh_20091201_8480.php?oref=newswire">Blair Levin</a>, FCC</span><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;">Reacting surprisingly quickly to your blogger's suggestion in his <a href="http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=7020039289">comments</a> to the Wireless Innovation Inquiry, Docket 09-157, FCC issued yesterday a<a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2518A1.pdf"> public notice</a> cryptically entitled "Data Sought on Uses of Spectrum". A key question tells what is going on here:</span></span><br />
<blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;">"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?"</span></span><br />
</div></blockquote><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;">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?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;"></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;">Your blogger's <a href="http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020039289">suggestion of September 22, 2009</a> (72 days ago) said: <br />
</span></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;"><span style="font-size: 85%;">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.<br />
<br />
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.</span></span></span><br />
</blockquote><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;">No broadcaster commented directly on this point, although MSTV and NAB in joint reply comments of November 5 (28 days ago) chose to<a href="http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=7020347824"> mischaracterize</a> it - no doubt to avoid addressing the point in question. In a footnote, the giants of the broadcasting industry<a href="http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020246016"> said</a></span></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;"> <span style="font-size: small;">"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."</span></span></span><br />
</blockquote><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Apparently, NAB and MSTV's attempt to take this issue off the field of consideration has backfired. The PN has questions like </span><br />
</div><blockquote><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;">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?</span></span> <br />
</blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;"><span style="font-size: small;">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. </span><br />
</span></span><br />
</blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4PlmgH1yaSZwmrA_AM5z_dalPmENAEx73e0acSBElFOPG1Iph9pV01MR8O1u1QIZbyz-AN8gOItNMEx9ILssEafPuMO3oOGcjqbYRe0_JdDJmcMpqu2m1AyytfDevsHYizqk2/s1600-h/Arqiva+logo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br />
</a></span><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.arqiva.com/" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4PlmgH1yaSZwmrA_AM5z_dalPmENAEx73e0acSBElFOPG1Iph9pV01MR8O1u1QIZbyz-AN8gOItNMEx9ILssEafPuMO3oOGcjqbYRe0_JdDJmcMpqu2m1AyytfDevsHYizqk2/s320/Arqiva+logo.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;">[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 </span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;">nonbroadcaster, <a href="http://www.arqiva.com/">Arqiva</a>. These transmitters send 4 SDTV signals in 1 TV channel. UK broadcasters, <i>e.g.</i> 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.]</span></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.arqiva.com/" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br />
</a><br />
</div><br />
<span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;"><a href="http://www.ctia.org/media/press/body.cfm/prid/1892">CTIA</a> was clearly pleased with the PN. They previously <a href="http://files.ctia.org/pdf/filings/091113_CTIA_Reply_Comments_Spectrum_for_Broadband_FINAL.pdf">said</a> 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 <a href="http://www.ce.org/Press/CurrentNews/press_release_detail.asp?id=11834">letter</a> to FCC saying</span></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: small;"> “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.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">“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.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">“The undersigned urge you to allocate more spectrum for wireless broadband as soon as possible. Please let us know how we can help.” </span><br />
</blockquote><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;"></span></span><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;"><a href="http://www.nab.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Press_Releases1&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=15177">NAB</a> was more restrained, </span></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;">"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."</span></span><br />
</blockquote><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;"><a href="http://www.pff.org/events/pastevents/120109-broadcasters-mobile-broadband-spectrum-market.asp#ear">Audio recording</a> of Progress and Freedom Foundation December 1 event on the same basic issue.</span></span><br />
<div class="subHeaderBlack" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_1259867005040"><b>Let's Make a Deal: <br />
Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, <br />
and a Market in Spectrum</b></a><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.pff.org/events/pastevents/120109-broadcasters-mobile-broadband-spectrum-market.asp#ear"><b><b>A PFF Congressional Seminar</b></b></a><br />
<div style="text-align: left;"><b><b>===================================================</b></b><br />
</div><div style="color: red; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b><b> <br />
</b></b></span><br />
</div><div style="color: red; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b><b> UPDATE</b></b></span><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_1259931472042"><b>12/4/09</b></a><i class="bodyTextLeft"><b><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/business/media/04hulu.html?emc=eta1"> NY Times</a> </b></i><b>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 <i>her own daughter </i>to take a TV set to college because the daughter would rather use IP video:</b><i class="bodyTextLeft"><b><br />
</b></i></b><br />
</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><b><i class="bodyTextLeft"><b> Web-TV Divide Is Back in Focus With NBC Sale</b></i></b><br />
</div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: left;">As she prepared her daughter for college, Anne Sweeney insisted that a television be among the dorm room accessories. <br />
</div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: left;">“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.<br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">That flustered Ms. Sweeney, who happens to be the president of the <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/disney_walt_company/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More information about Disney, Walt, Co">Disney</a>-ABC Television Group. <br />
</div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: left;">“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.”<br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">But she does not, actually.<br />
</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><i class="bodyTextLeft"><b> </b></i></b><br />
</div></div><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;"> </span></span>MJMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07026719682642838870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post-8475603112867108142009-12-01T07:27:00.000-05:002009-12-01T07:27:16.565-05:00<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://mason.gmu.edu/%7Ethazlett/hazlett.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://mason.gmu.edu/%7Ethazlett/hazlett.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b style="color: red; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Putting A Price Tag On TV Spectrum </span></b><br />
</div><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Guest entry by Tom Hazlett</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(Reprinted with permission from <a href="http://www.tvnewscheck.com/articles/2009/11/25/daily.12/"><i>TV News Channel</i></a>)</span><br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">Hi, broadcasters. I'm an economist. Happy Thanksgiving. Let's talk turkey.<br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">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.<br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">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.<br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">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.<br />
<br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">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.<br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">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.<br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">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.<br />
<br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">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?<br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">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.<br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">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.<br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">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.<br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">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?<br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">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.<br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">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.<br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">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?<br />
</div><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif;">Thomas W. Hazlett is Professor of Law & Economics and serves as Director of the <a href="http://iep.gmu.edu/" target="_blank">Information Economy Project</a> at George Mason University School of Law. He is also a Columnist for the New Technology Policy Forum hosted by the <em>Financial Times.</em> 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.</span><br />
<br />
<div> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif;">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, <em>Public Policy Toward Cable Television</em>, was co-authored with Matthew L. Spitzer (MIT Press, 1997).</span><br />
</div></div>MJMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07026719682642838870noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post-67349193780472431712009-11-25T18:51:00.001-05:002009-11-25T20:08:48.264-05:00<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisIq2wlCXM7FjkNIVIVcRhizjYVkQod7bkiZVx928KbY9y0K6vXGWdgBwjN5O6nTWtPJBsAd8Js-oTDFxnonE9PGmrSOLqHZcf_cQYx5abcLu_AX-MXc_jMUCXDpl3hQuKiZht/s1600/shot+clock.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisIq2wlCXM7FjkNIVIVcRhizjYVkQod7bkiZVx928KbY9y0K6vXGWdgBwjN5O6nTWtPJBsAd8Js-oTDFxnonE9PGmrSOLqHZcf_cQYx5abcLu_AX-MXc_jMUCXDpl3hQuKiZht/s320/shot+clock.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b style="color: red; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">FCC Acts on CTIA</b></span><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b style="color: red; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> "Shot Clock" Petition</b></span><br />
</div><br />
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">On November 18, <a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-99A1.pdf">FCC granted in part</a> the CTIA July 11, 2008 <a href="http://files.ctia.org/pdf/filings/080711_Shot_Clock_Petition.pdf">petition</a> on setting "shot clock"-like deadlines for local zoning reviews of cell tower zoning requests. The FCC said:</span><br />
</div><blockquote style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">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).</span><br />
</blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUnwF1xqo7TJvlp68HK7yKHhzwfxQdmYNGoJxF7rl8PjiLeUvsf7ITiQhpjvatTXlNAB4r8m_njFAptte1jlM_vanXuAzkDO7_odD9ojq8Mby8gFPcxsIejA6Sgg0VvSvv_N5I/s1600/NJ+cell+antenna.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUnwF1xqo7TJvlp68HK7yKHhzwfxQdmYNGoJxF7rl8PjiLeUvsf7ITiQhpjvatTXlNAB4r8m_njFAptte1jlM_vanXuAzkDO7_odD9ojq8Mby8gFPcxsIejA6Sgg0VvSvv_N5I/s320/NJ+cell+antenna.jpg" /></a></span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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.</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">But the root cause of much of this problem is the design of <i>most</i> 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.<br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">In the next decade, the total requirement for suburban antennas for <b>all</b> 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.)</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">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. </span><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br />
</div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">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.</span></span>MJMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07026719682642838870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post-85637608441592522592009-11-22T22:32:00.003-05:002009-11-23T09:34:52.646-05:00<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.ofcom.org.uk/images/furniture/logo_ofcom" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/maps/images/callsigns/KTNC.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br />
</a><br />
</div><img alt="" border="0" src="http://www.ofcom.org.uk/images/furniture/logo_ofcom" style="float: left; height: 38px; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; width: 170px;" /><span style="color: #cc0000; font-family: arial; font-size: x-large; font-weight: bold;">Ofcom on </span><br />
<span style="color: #cc0000; font-family: arial; font-size: x-large; font-weight: bold;">TV White Space</span><br />
</div><img alt="" src="file:///Users/mikemarcus/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/moz-screenshot.png" /><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman;">As many readers know, </span><a href="http://www.ofcom.org.uk/about/nations_regions/" style="font-family: times new roman;">Ofcom</a><span style="font-family: times new roman;"> 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,</span></span> <br />
<blockquote style="font-family: times new roman;">"(Ofcom) is based upon a model which is familiar to the commercial sector but which marks a departure from the past. <br />
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."<br />
</blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;">(As I have pointed out in </span><a href="http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=7020245047" style="font-family: times new roman;">my reply comments to Docket 09-157</a><span style="font-family: times new roman;">, FCC - without additional legislation - could move to this model for noncontroversial spectrum matters and probably increase its productivity significantly - but I digress.)<br />
<br />
</span> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBHapO_YEWrOvtDY72Yk_CgWjzJdsZfPxbRewwATxW-nD83UJZEIxaweBi35r10QoHnDm4ARDtQk2CUFeerY2B9vVyTlUDVvGJU9iMrcOynzvWtLV0q9VH9qGszmbqgBj-hzYZ/s1600/Ofcom+doc.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" style="font-family: times new roman;"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5406662144966956178" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBHapO_YEWrOvtDY72Yk_CgWjzJdsZfPxbRewwATxW-nD83UJZEIxaweBi35r10QoHnDm4ARDtQk2CUFeerY2B9vVyTlUDVvGJU9iMrcOynzvWtLV0q9VH9qGszmbqgBj-hzYZ/s400/Ofcom+doc.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; float: left; height: 400px; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; width: 289px;" /></a><span style="font-family: times new roman;">On November 17, Ofcom issued a "discussion document" entitled "</span><a href="http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/cogaccess/cogaccess.pdf" style="font-family: times new roman;">Digital Dividend: Geolocation for Cognitive Access A discussion on using geolocation to enable licence- exempt access to the interleaved spectrum</a><span style="font-family: times new roman;">". 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".</span> <span style="font-family: times new roman;">Like the original FCC <span style="font-style: italic;">NPRM</span>, Ofcom is thinking about white space devices using either geosensing <span style="font-weight: bold;">or </span>LBT (listen-before-talk) technology. FCC in its November 4, 2008 <a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-260A1.pdf"><span style="font-style: italic;">2nd R&O</span></a> selected the "belt and suspenders"<br />
</span></span><a href="http://www.mytoolstore.com/graber/gbrindex.html" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5407050124226929938" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigJlKtI_sky5dCh7iRO9hDj7M5gbgaLDyC82K46rOuGS_KTToTz6RulcTmxywWxF1dp6JMoU2MW_62q8uyOJ3OQ43ajGduAgx4IrySfzK9qZwM1j2FRDFNVyP5zw46jWp089il/s400/Belt+suspen.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 121px; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; width: 222px;" /></a><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;">approach of requiring <span style="font-weight: bold;">both</span> 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.</span> <span style="font-family: times new roman;"><br />
<br />
In Ofcom's geosensing proposal they state</span></span> <br />
<blockquote style="font-family: times new roman;">"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 <a href="http://www.arqiva.com/">Arqiva</a>, 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)." <span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-small;"><br />
(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.)</span><br />
</blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;">Thus the assumed coverage of TV stations under the Ofcom proposal will be based on "validated predictions" of coverage accumulated over many years.</span> <span style="font-family: times new roman;">So what does FCC require? Check out the new <a href="http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=%2Findex.tpl"> </a></span></span><meta content="" name="Title"></meta> <meta content="" name="Keywords"></meta> <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" equiv="Content-Type"></meta> <meta content="Word.Document" name="ProgId"></meta> <meta content="Microsoft Word 2008" name="Generator"></meta> <meta content="Microsoft Word 2008" name="Originator"></meta> <link href="file://localhost/Users/mikemarcus/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0/clip_filelist.xml" rel="File-List" style="font-family: times new roman;"></link> <style>
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p.LargeNormalBold, li.LargeNormalBold, div.LargeNormalBold {mso-style-name:LargeNormalBold; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; font-weight:bold; mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
</style> <span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;"><a href="http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=%2Findex.tpl">§15.512(a)</a>:</span></span> <br />
<blockquote><span style="font-family: times new roman;">"TVBDs must protect digital and analog TV services within the contours shown in the following table. The contours are based on the <a href="http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/reports/R-6602.pdf">R–6602</a> curves contained in §73.699" of this chapter.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOY7K04BvXnOCA0QCAezmAuaGAfzF209Ru3pyyA62GngybVeSd2yQ4NqayvQJc9ouxiUZ6G1WiD-2BhXmP0wvd0Q3kfTIidrUe0W8qwsmXUtcg5_21jsGhK8MbI_DBxX4QLj7I/s1600/15.712.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5406671715238059586" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOY7K04BvXnOCA0QCAezmAuaGAfzF209Ru3pyyA62GngybVeSd2yQ4NqayvQJc9ouxiUZ6G1WiD-2BhXmP0wvd0Q3kfTIidrUe0W8qwsmXUtcg5_21jsGhK8MbI_DBxX4QLj7I/s400/15.712.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 211px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 400px;" /></a><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />
</span></span><br />
</blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="http://www.access.gpo.gov/ecfr/graphics/ec01mr91.090.gif" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" style="font-family: times new roman;"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5406674397098948434" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsX9YOF64f_0mNFXle5o3-C-6RyKpxfR9P9TbvjFL0Z9qTZp5wKvJJh-ZssBGn29Q2EAuKJZeoTE_2qY32j6TH_rxI0bzRvx_seIH9DPepHMjZcw22EsD5cSTpDyRNeLRxU58A/s400/Fig+5a.gif" style="cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 342px; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; width: 258px;" /></a></span><span style="font-family: times new roman; font-size: medium;"><br />
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 <meta content="" name="Title"></meta> <meta content="" name="Keywords"></meta> <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" equiv="Content-Type"></meta> <meta content="Word.Document" name="ProgId"></meta> <meta content="Microsoft Word 2008" name="Generator"></meta> <meta content="Microsoft Word 2008" name="Originator"></meta> <link href="file://localhost/Users/mikemarcus/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0/clip_filelist.xml" rel="File-List"></link> <style>
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p.LargeNormalBold, li.LargeNormalBold, div.LargeNormalBold {mso-style-name:LargeNormalBold; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; font-weight:bold; mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
</style> §73.333 .</span><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="http://www.access.gpo.gov/ecfr/graphics/pdfs/ec01mr91.089.pdf" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" style="font-family: times new roman;"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5406674305663034610" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2Dz9cfPHrfnetNzx1zafwUabw2CkK-P5TStqpfjEBE9C3lYk5jLJ5Pd4Pw1aeRDuEiQ3ND0djnQJOn5jdeG9UgkojJJQipnliWQATYOArHaVKTSayXQ7om6B3oMptc9v0wmid/s400/Fig+4.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; float: left; height: 224px; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; width: 266px;" /></a> </span><span style="font-family: times new roman; font-size: medium;">(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.) </span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;">Note that due to the wording of </span></span><meta content="" name="Title"></meta> <meta content="" name="Keywords"></meta> <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" equiv="Content-Type"></meta> <meta content="Word.Document" name="ProgId"></meta> <meta content="Microsoft Word 2008" name="Generator"></meta> <meta content="Microsoft Word 2008" name="Originator"></meta> <link href="file://localhost/Users/mikemarcus/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0/clip_filelist.xml" rel="File-List" style="font-family: times new roman;"></link> <style>
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p.LargeNormalBold, li.LargeNormalBold, div.LargeNormalBold {mso-style-name:LargeNormalBold; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; font-weight:bold; mso-bidi-font-weight:normal;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
</style> <span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;">§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.</span> <span style="font-family: times new roman;">FCC has warned about the limitations of this technique even when the correction factors are applied:</span></span> <meta content="" name="Title"></meta> <meta content="" name="Keywords"></meta> <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" equiv="Content-Type"></meta> <meta content="Word.Document" name="ProgId"></meta> <meta content="Microsoft Word 2008" name="Generator"></meta> <meta content="Microsoft Word 2008" name="Originator"></meta> <link href="file://localhost/Users/mikemarcus/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0/clip_filelist.xml" rel="File-List" style="font-family: times new roman;"></link> <style>
<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Times; panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p.MsoFootnoteText, li.MsoFootnoteText, div.MsoFootnoteText {mso-style-link:"Footnote Text Char"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} span.MsoFootnoteReference {vertical-align:super;} span.FootnoteTextChar {mso-style-name:"Footnote Text Char"; mso-style-locked:yes; mso-style-link:"Footnote Text"; mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
</style> <br />
<blockquote style="font-family: times new roman;">"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.” <br />
</blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNckJ6-DRlmC-pEdTKLaRjnA1Zh3EBvBIZ060VWN22cOHU9XuseW6Ou4801DQZlOR767RQR7CnQYPmBVbPTClKydJ0BG8zDiw2WQVHifp18UUmmLn2neekTNBRuPQQ8_1SA4tL/s1600/Concord+CA.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br />
</a><br />
</div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;">The limitations of the FCC technique are clear in the following coverage map of KTNC-TV/DT, Concord CA from the FCC's <a href="http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/maps/images/callsigns/KTNC.gif">dtv.gov website</a>. 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 <i>never</i> had analog coverage are not shown.)<br />
</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;">Hint -- why is it called "Napa <b>Valley</b>"? 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 </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;">and it may be appropriate for "<a href="http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Informal/spectrum.txt">administrative certainty</a>" to keep it for allotments today. But it is unrealististic to use it to define actual coverage of a TV signal.<br />
</span></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/maps/images/callsigns/KTNC.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/maps/images/callsigns/KTNC.gif" width="492" /></a><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNckJ6-DRlmC-pEdTKLaRjnA1Zh3EBvBIZ060VWN22cOHU9XuseW6Ou4801DQZlOR767RQR7CnQYPmBVbPTClKydJ0BG8zDiw2WQVHifp18UUmmLn2neekTNBRuPQQ8_1SA4tL/s1600/Concord+CA.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNckJ6-DRlmC-pEdTKLaRjnA1Zh3EBvBIZ060VWN22cOHU9XuseW6Ou4801DQZlOR767RQR7CnQYPmBVbPTClKydJ0BG8zDiw2WQVHifp18UUmmLn2neekTNBRuPQQ8_1SA4tL/s320/Concord+CA.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNckJ6-DRlmC-pEdTKLaRjnA1Zh3EBvBIZ060VWN22cOHU9XuseW6Ou4801DQZlOR767RQR7CnQYPmBVbPTClKydJ0BG8zDiw2WQVHifp18UUmmLn2neekTNBRuPQQ8_1SA4tL/s1600/Concord+CA.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><br />
</a><br />
</div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;">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?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;"><br />
</span></span><br />
MJMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07026719682642838870noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25652978.post-3172293195036857792009-11-20T09:22:00.006-05:002009-12-12T23:52:01.198-05:00<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5-45VRwQVALoIIAzWr3kUWXA7ldpalMc1rk9C1QcuZhuylxTHYopZfVB5xURBz2oSM4nZB2WW3SXv_oUnJkZv0GLHwwcjY-WAtOjARgK2RD9U2EKuQTsBb9o_OzZ6oK-WZjUb/s1600/pff.gif" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5406191266472379058" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5-45VRwQVALoIIAzWr3kUWXA7ldpalMc1rk9C1QcuZhuylxTHYopZfVB5xURBz2oSM4nZB2WW3SXv_oUnJkZv0GLHwwcjY-WAtOjARgK2RD9U2EKuQTsBb9o_OzZ6oK-WZjUb/s400/pff.gif" style="cursor: pointer; float: left; height: 54px; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; width: 503px;" /></a><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 250%;"><br />
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 180%;"><span style="color: #cc0000; font-weight: bold;">The Progress & Freedom Foundation<br />
Presents</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 180%;"><span style="color: #cc0000; font-weight: bold;">Let's Make a Deal: Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, and a Market in Spectrum </span></span><br />
</div><br />
<span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;">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.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman;">Speakers include </span></span><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;">FCC's Blair Levin, Coleman Bazelon of The Brattle Group, Kostas Liopiros of The Sun Fire Group </span></span><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;">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.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman;">" <a href="http://www.pff.org/events/upcomingevents/120109-broadcasters-mobile-broadband-spectrum-market.asp">Let's Make a Deal: Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, and a Market in Spectrum</a> ," 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 <a href="http://www.pff.org/events/upcomingevents/120109-broadcasters-mobile-broadband-spectrum-market.asp#reg">register here</a>. Questions should be directed to Allison Bringardner at abringardner@pff.org or 202-289-8928.<br />
<br />
Your blogger presented a similar proposal in his <a href="http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=7020039289">comments</a> to the Wireless Innovation Inquiry, Docket 09-157:<br />
</span></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;"><span style="font-size: 85%;"><br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.</span></span></span><br />
</blockquote><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;">No broadcaster commented directly on this point, although MSTV and NAB in joint reply comments chose to<a href="http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=7020347824"> mischaracterize</a> 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.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;">=====</span></span><br />
<div style="color: red; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">UPDATE</span><br />
</div><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;"><a href="http://techliberation.com/2009/12/11/transcript-of-pff-event-on-broadcast-spectrum-reallocation/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TechLiberation%2FAdamThierer+%28Technology+Liberation+Front+%C2%BB+Adam+Thierer%29">Transcript of event</a><br />
<br />
</span><br />
</span>MJMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07026719682642838870noreply@blogger.com0