CTIA, NENA, APCO, and NPSTC Ask FCC to Act on Wireless Microphones and 700 MHz

On 2/23 CTIA - The Wireless Association®, the National Emergency Number Association ("NENA"), The Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials - International ("APCO"), and the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council ("NPSTC") filed a joint letter with FCC in WT Docket No. 08-167 asking it to act on the issues of wireless microphones' continued use of 700 MHz.

(Oddly the letter is not on the CTIA website even today, but was reported by FierceWireless.)

The letter stated,

"Harmful interference from unauthorized low-power devices operating in the 700 MHz band threatens to prevent licensees from realizing the benefits to public safety that the 700 MHz band promises. We understand that there is an item currently before the Commission to address low-power devices in the 700 MHz band and urge you to take action to curb the harmful use of these low-power devices.

It is of critical importance that low-power auxiliary devices do not cause harmful interference to critical communications - and the commercial communications that enable ordinary Americans to reach public safety in their moments of need. As both public safety and commercial licensees begin to utilize spectrum from broadcasters who have completed their digital transition, we ask that the Commission take action to clear the 700 MHz band of unauthorized low-power auxiliary users. By clarifying in an Order that low-power auxiliary devices must not interfere with authorized public safety and commercial licensees, and that those devices must accept all interference from licensed users, the Commission sends a strong signal to all users of these devices that the public safety benefits of the 700 MHz spectrum outweigh any - licensed or unauthorized - use of the band."

The joint parties then said they

"urge the Commission to require that operation of all low-power auxiliary devices in the 700 MHz band cease no later than one year from the adoption of an Order and issue a Consumer Advisory informing the public. Additionally, in order to speed the deployment of public safety and commercial systems in the 700 MHz band, the Commission should require low-power users to cease operation within 60 days of notice that a licensee intends to initiate or change its wireless operations such that the low-power devices will likely cause interference."

As we pointed out previously, this 60 day issue - originally proposed by NAB, MSTV and Shure - has the practical problem that almost all wireless microphones in use are illegal and hence not in any public database. (Perhaps Shure has such a database internally and might be willing to share it in exchange for immunity from criminal prosecution of their clients?)

So far Shure and fellow travelers have not addressed the points raised in this joint filing.

Shure Cleans Up Its Act - A Little Bit

In a previous post I reported that Shure was ignoring public safety use of TV channels 14-20 in making recommendations to their generally not legally eligible customers for their illegal use of UHF spectrum. A mutual acquaintance discussed this with Shure and reported back that it was an unintended software bug and that they had intended to warn the illegal users, i.e. their customers, to avoid public safety spectrum. He also reported that Shure would correct this specific problem.

The good news is that Shure has acted as promised.

Shure's listing of Chicago UHF spectrum use in channels 14-51

Above is the latest data from Shure's "Wireless Frequency Finder". (See, who needs Chairman Martin and the FCC?) In the case of Chicago, channels 14 and 15 are clearly marked as used by "safety" just like 47 CFR 90.303 says. Perhaps APCO will give Shure an award for this support to public safety?

Indeed Shure goes beyond this if you look a little higher in the spectrum.

Shure's listing of Chicago UHF spectrum use in channels 29-69

Now Shure even advises this customers that channel 68 and 69 have been "reallocated for public safety". Shure also advises that US customers avoid purchasing "UA band" (782.125 - 805.750 MHz) systems although in 2004 they were hyping this band. (Let's ignore the issue that Canada will use the same public safety block as the US and there is no guidance for Canadian clients - Industry Canada will have to handle that one alone.)

But why channels 68 & 69?

Upper 700 MHz band plan

Above is the current 700 MHz band plan. You can see why Shure's UA band is such a problem. Is Shure offering a deal to those who were tricked into buying them in recent years? But why the focus on channels 68 and 69? Note that there are 2 public safety blocks here in the former channels 62-64 and the former channels 67-69. Note also that the famous "D block" covers the remainder of channels 62 and 67 and, if the FCC ever resolves the auction issues of this band and public/private sharing, will carry public safety traffic at times of heavy load. Why are only 68 and 69 identified as worthy of special attention?

Oddly, on another part of its website Shure does say that "the FCC has reallocated four UHF TV channels for use by Public Safety stations" but doesn't mention what they are. Also, if D block is included there are 6 channels that will be used by public safety. But in any case, all wireless mics (legal and illegal) should be totally out of channels 51-69 by February!

A non-public safety issue I noticed in the Shure tables above deals with channel 55. Note that Shure does not identify any present TV use of it in Chicago. They're right! However, did Shure miss the news in Wikipedia that Qualcomm has a nationwide license on channel 55 for its MediaFLO service (which is resold to consumers under other names by AT&T and Verizon Wireless)? Qualcomm MediaFLO is secondary to TV stations until next February but is now operational in the cities listed below:
Note that MediaFLO is operational in Chicago on channel 55 as well as a lot of other cities. While it is secondary with respect to licensed TV stations, I am reasonably certain that it is primary with respect to noneligible/illegal users of their spectrum. It also is a potential source of interference to wireless microphones if they are near a transmitter site. (And wireless microphones are a potential source of interference to consumers using MediaFLO-based services.)

Readers interested in more news on wireless microphones are referred to the recent post on the PISC complaint that alleges that not only is Shure's customers' use of these frequencies illegal but that Shure itself is acting illegally

"for willfully and knowingly marketing and selling wireless microphones to unauthorized users for ineligible purposes in violation of Part 74, Subpart H, and for engaging in deceptive advertising practices designed to persuade ineligible users such as houses of worship, theaters, corporate event venues, and members of the general public that they could legally purchase and operate wireless microphones operating on vacant broadcast UHF Channels without a license and for purposes prohibited by the Commission;"

and to my recent FCC filing pointing out the CEPT, the European spectrum regulator, has proposed to move wireless microphones to an entirely new band as part of their digital transition.

As I have said before, wireless microphones are a legitimate use of spectrum and deserve more from FCC than benign neglect that allows most users only criminal spectrum squatting. I have advocate a responsible solution to this mess; PISC includes with their complaint a responsible proposal for solving the problem; but Shure seems to just demand the status quo. FCC is strangely silent on the wireless microphone issue other than considering offers of venues, many of which are illegal users, for Docket 04-186 testing of wireless microphone detection.

My client, Adaptrum, pragmatically also supports protection of wireless microphone users but has told FCC that a combination of safe harbors (for small users) and well placed beacons would be more effective than the passive detection advocated by other Docket 04-186 proponents.

Update

I just discovered that the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) wrote Chmn. Martin on June 30, 2008. The letter stated,

• The Commission should take specific action to ensure that all
  manufacturers cease certifying, marketing and importing wireless microphones and
  similar devices capable of operating in the public safety 700 MHz band spectrum
• NPSTC recommends the Commission expeditiously initiate an aggressive and rational transition within which users must find other solutions for any microphones operating on the 700 MHz public safety spectrum
• Unlicensed microphones present a different situation. Legally, unlicensed
  wireless microphones already have no authority to operate.
  
• (The Commission should) expeditiously issue a Public Notice targeted toward wireless microphone manufacturers and dealers advising of the transition in use of the 763-775/793-805 MHz spectrum and need to cease unlicensed operations in those band segments.

In view of the great apparent interest in public safety at FCC it is amazing that no action has been taken on any of these points in the more than a month since the letter was sent.

Oddly, NPSTC did not address the issue I have raised about the legal ambiguity of wireless microphone use of land mobile spectrun in TV channels 14-20.

New Wireless Microphone Complaint and Petition

This week the Public Interest Spectrum Coalition filed with FCC a complaint about the massive marketing of wireless microphones to users who could not legally use them - creating de facto allocations and service rules without the benefit of policy deliberations and consideration of the long term implications.

This petition results, in part, from some work I did for the New America Foundation, a PISC member. The concepts are also related to my March 10, 2008 post entitled "Wireless Mics are a Legitimate Use of Spectrum:They Deserve More from FCC than Benign Neglect that Allows Most Users Only Criminal Spectrum Squatting".

The basic points of the FCC filing are:

• Begin an investigation against Shure, Inc., and the other manufacturers listed in the informal complaint, for willfully and knowingly marketing and selling wireless microphones to unauthorized users for ineligible purposes in violation of Part 74, Subpart H, and for engagingin deceptive advertising practices designed to persuade ineligible users such as houses of worship, theaters, corporate event venues, and members of the general public that they could legally purchase and operate wireless microphones operating on vacant broadcast UHF Channels without a license and for purposes prohibited by the Commission;

•Grant a general amnesty to all unauthorized users of wireless microphones deceived by the
illegal and deceptive marketing of manufacturers, permit use of the illegal equipment on a
going forward basis until the Commission authorizes the proposed GWMS, and require those
manufacturers that engaged in illegal marketing to migrate the unauthorized users of Part 74,
Subpart H equipment to the new GWMS by replacing equipment authorized for Part 74,
Subpart H with equipment authorized for use in the GWMS;

•Immediately reclassify all licensed wireless microphone systems operating pursuant to Part 74, Subpart H as secondary to all advanced wireless service (AWS) and public safety systems authorized to operate on television Channels 52-69 following the shut off of analog television transmission;

• Order that manufacture, sale, and advertisement for sale of wireless microphone systems operating on channels 52-69 cease immediately; and

• Create a new “General Wireless Microphone Service” (GWMS) licensed by rule pursuant to Section 307(e) to operate on vacant broadcast UHF channels below Channel 52 on a secondary basis to broadcast licensees and individually licensed wireless microphone systems, and authorized on a primary basis to operate on the 2020-25 Band currently authorized for broadcast ancillary service (BAS) and under consideration for reallocation in Docket Nos. WT 07-195, WT 04-356 (“AWS-2/AWS-3 Proceeding”).

It has always amazed me that in a law and order-oriented Republican administration this lawless behavior has been tolerated even when it involves the illegal and dangerous use of public safety spectrum. (In the case of immigration reforms, don't most Republicans think that those who have violated the law should not be given amnesty and should go to the "back of the line" with respect to benefits? In this case, the "liberal" members of PISC are at least consistent with the liberal view of immigration issues. It will be interesting to see how Republicans view the issue.)

Indeed, it is amazing that this complaint comes from PISC, not CTIA or its cellular behemoth members that have recently spent billions for the spectrum that Shure encourages their customers to use and not from APCO that hounds the FCC for more spectrum but has ignored protecting the spectrum from such intruders. (While there may not be a documented case of wireless mic interference to public safety in the FCC records, we all know that public safety systems frequently have marginal repeater coverage inside buildings. (Remember what happened at the World Trade Center when the firemen couldn't get receive the order to evacuate?) When the downlink signal is marginal, small cochannel signals can easily cause interference. So CTIA and APCO members might want to ask their trade associations why they have been ignoring this spectrum squatting for so long.

Discussion in Harold Feld's blog including exchange with Henry Cohen, an engineer active in Broadway use of wireless mics.

AP story

Chicago Tribune story. Includes this discussion of Shure's views,

Shure spokesman Mark Brunner said the company is aware of the potential interference problem from the digital transition and hasn't sold products for that spectrum since late 2007. [Wow - they stopped in the past year. Maybe they finally read something in USA Today about the 700 MHz auction! Maybe news travels slowly "outside the Beltway? What have they told customers that bought this equipment? The world wonders. - MM]

As for the broader issue of how so many unauthorized users were allowed to purchase wireless microphones, Brunner said technological advances and market practices of the last several years simply overtook the outdated FCC rules.

"Those rules were written several decades ago, when wireless microphones were a bit more crude than they are today. … Over time, no interference complaint has really resulted," Brunner said. "The technology got better and more industries decided they were interested in using these products. … The rules were never really updated to reflect that."

Did it ever occur to Shure to ask FCC to change its rules rather than selling hardware to users who use of it would be in violation of criminal law and might endanger public safety where the FCC's tolerance of interference risk is rightfully near zero?

A Wireless Microphone Manufacturer's Approach to Spectrum Management

In Docket 04-186 (TV Whitespace) the wireless microphone community has been making numerous complaints about how they can not be subject to any interference because they are such a vital service. Of course, the vast majority of present wireless microphone users are not eligible for licensed under Part 74, Subpart H so such use is actually a criminal violation of 47 USC 301. But setting that aside for the moment, let's see how responsible they have been. Below is a web page I downloaded for Shure's Wireless Frequency Finder website. I have made several annotations.

(Click on any of the images in this post to get a clearer version of the information shown)

First, next to the letter A is the following quote:

"As a rule, a wireless system should NOT operate on the same frequency as a local TVstation. The signal strength of a television transmission is many times stronger than that of a wireless system, and will result in interference."

I note that "rule" is not capitalized, so I assume that Shure is not referring to FCC Rules. You see the reason you should not pick an active local TV channel is that you might get interference. Shure apparently isn't concerned that TV viewers might get interference. Shure also isn't concerned about interference to weak distant TV stations, the problem that MSTV keeps complaining about for the proposed white space devices. Why is MSTV so worried about cognitive radio-based WSDs and oblivious to the present illegal use of UHF spectrum by "dumb" wireless mics?

Next, near the letter B, we have the following quote,

"Shure wireless microphones and PSM systems designed for use in the United States operate on standard VHF (TV channels 7-13, 174-216 MHz) and UHF, TV channels 14-69, 470-806 MHz, frequencies."

470-806 MHz? Does that sound familiar? Doesn't that include the frequencies that FCC
just auctioned off for $19B and AT&T and Verizon expect to start using in 306 days? Doesn't it include blocks that have been allocated to public safety? Did Shure forget to tell its customers? Perhaps they didn't read the newspapers about the auction? What are their customers really expecting? When is Shure going to urge them to move out of these 700 MHz channels? Note that the whole tone of the "spectrum finder" is that users should listen to Shure and just ignore FCC and everyone else.

Then I entered the FCC's ZIP code, 20554, in the Shure "frequency finder" and asked for frequencies in the DC area. Here are the results:

Well at least Shure does not recommend the frequencies that have been auctioned. But wait, isn't there something special about channels 17 & 18 in the Washington DC area? Weren't they allocated for TV Land Mobile Sharing in Docket 18262 in the 1970s?

Pulling out my brand new copy of 47 CFR I look up 90.303. Voila, in the Washington area 17 & 18 are land mobile public safety channels!

So I went to ULS and looked up the specific use of channels 17 and 18 in the DC area. Above is the list of 28 public safety agencies in the Washington area that use these frequencies. Did Shure ask them if it was OK for illegal nonlicensed users in a band subject to mandatory licensing to share their frequencies?

How could Shure have missed that? If Shure thinks sharing with public safety is so easy, why don't they file a petition and see what APCO thinks about it?

I have written previously that wireless microphones are a legitimate use of spectrum and that FCC should accommodate them in some way, but not necessarily with the same obsolescent technology forever and not necessarily in the same valuable spectrum that they use inefficiently (in terms of time and space availability) if they exclude all others. But the wireless microphone crowd should start acting responsibly first, not just urging their customers to squat on all sorts of frequencies including public safety frequencies.

Considering the lawless, reckless nature this group has shown, it is amazing that established trade groups like CTIA, NAB, and MSTV are all pandering to them. Normally these groups protect their own interests by stressing the need for compliance with FCC regulations, not explicitly condoning violations of them.