FCC VHF UHF Part 90 Radio Narrowbanding Reminder

In December 2004, the FCC issued an Order mandating that all Part 90 business, educational, industrial, public safety, and state and local government private land mobile radio (PLMR) licensees operating in the VHF (150 – 174 MHz) and UHF (421 – 512 MHz) bands convert their dispatch, paging, and data/SCADA radio systems from legacy wideband (25 kilohertz) to narrowband (12.5 kilohertz or equivalent) operation by Jan. 1, 2013. That date is now LESS THAN 32 MONTHS away.

Contrary to what some may have heard or been led to believe, the Order does not require licensees to change to new radio frequencies or different frequency bands, nor does it require moving from analog to digital or from a conventional to a trunked radio system. However, these are options that some licensees may want to more fully explore with the guidance of a qualified radio communications system professional. The Order also doesn’t mean that licensees need to replace all their current radio system equipment — only any soon-to-be-non-compliant equipment.

What the FCC’s mandate does require is that all wideband-only conventional or trunked VHF and UHF radios, including handheld portables, vehicle-mounted mobiles, dispatcher stations, wireless data, telemetry, or supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) link radios (called subscriber radios) and any associated wideband-only conventional or trunked base or repeater stations (called infrastructure radios), be replaced with narrowband capable equipment prior to the 2013 date to continue legal use of Part 90 radio frequencies beyond that date. FCC radio system licenses must also be modified to reflect the change to narrowband emissions and operation.

Migration Steps

Over the last several years, in response to the mandate, many licensees have started the narrowband migration process by deploying dual-mode subscriber radios — those capable of both wideband and narrowband operation — as new radios have been added to their systems or as older wideband-only radios were lost, damaged beyond repair or otherwise removed from service. While this strategy is a practical, cost-effective approach, particularly by those with large numbers of subscriber radios in their fleets or those with multiple radio frequencies, base stations and repeaters in their systems, this method addresses only the first step of a multi-step process.

Unless a radio system is initially implemented as a narrowband system - as most new systems have been during the past eight to ten years - many dual-mode replacement subscriber radios deployed into pre-mandate or older, conventional or trunked VHF or UHF radio systems have typically been programmed for wideband rather than narrowband operation. This best-practices method was necessary to retain compatibility with existing wideband subscriber and infrastructure radios in use in those systems. (NOTE: the mixing of wideband and narrowband radios on the same frequency of a system is generally not encouraged nor recommended. Doing so has the potential to render most voice - and especially data - transmissions between wideband and narrowband radios unintelligible, distorted or unreliable). The method also allowed the expense of replacing infrastructure radios at the same time to be deferred, as the year 2013 seemed a long way off.

In many instances, however, the need to address the deferred replacement of wideband-only infrastructure radios may have inadvertently been overlooked or even forgotten by some licensees or radio system managers. This is particularly true when it comes to the many smaller business, educational, and industrial users of two way radio who typically don't keep up with current FCC Rules or the responsibilities that go along with being a Part 90 licensee, and, who quite often simply take the use and benefit of their radio systems for granted.

Consider this post a "wake-up" call to all licensees that, until all subscriber and infrastructure radios are fully migrated to narrowband operation, many radio systems may still be operating in the wideband mode, which is legal only until Jan. 1, 2013.

Migration Planning

Has your company or organization developed a migration plan and budget to address the next steps necessary to complete the narrowband migration process and become fully FCC compliant? These steps include replacing any remaining wideband-only subscriber radios still being used; procuring and installing narrowband base stations, repeaters or other infrastructure radios as needed; preparing a well-planned, coordinated approach to re-programming all radios to narrowband operation; and modifying a radio station license to reflect any new emissions designators. Click here for more migration suggestions.

The 2013 date isn’t that far away, particularly if funding needs to be secured and budgets prepared or, when any operations dependent on uninterrupted radio communications may be jeopardized.

Companies and organizations that recognize and appreciate the value of their Part 90 two-way voice and data radio communications systems are advised not to wait until the last minute to begin or complete the narrowbanding process. By waiting, they are risking not only the loss of use of their current radio frequencies, but the return on the investment (ROI) and associated benefits provided by their radio system equipment as well.

More Information

For on-line discussions regarding the mandate, licensees and others interested in narrowbanding are invited to join the LMR Narrowbanding Yahoo! Group

Additional Part 90 Narrowbanding information and resources are also available here: http://www.wirelessradio.net


NR

FCC's LMR Narrowbanding now less than 32 Months Away

With less than 32 months until the FCC's 2013 Narrowbanding Mandate is due to take effect, and, because there continues to be a lack of up-to-date, and accurate flow of information or guidance from both the FCC and most of the land mobile two way radio industry targeted to business, educational, industrial, utility, municipal government, and public safety Part 90 VHF and UHF licensees, a new web site has been established to help spread the word.

Please refer this site to those who need to take action now in order to meet the narrowbanding deadline. Procrastination on the part of any licensee is not an option. DO NOT wait until the very last minute to begin or complete your narrowbanding project.


NR

FCC Part 90 Narrowbanding Info & Resource Site for LMR VHF UHF Licensees

With less than 36 months left until the FCC's 2013 Narrowbanding Mandate is due to take effect, and, because there continues to be a lack of user-specific, up-to-date, and accurate flow of information or guidance from both the FCC and the industry targeted to Part 90 VHF and UHF licensees, a new web site has been established to help spread the word.

Please feel free to refer this site to those who need to take action now in order to meet the narrowbanding deadline. Procrastination on the part of any licensee is not an option.


NR

Is Your FCC Part 90 VHF-UHF Radio System Narrowband Ready?

In December 2004, the FCC issued an Order mandating that all Part 90 business, educational, industrial, public safety, and state and local government VHF (150 – 174 MHz) and UHF (421 – 512 MHz) private land mobile radio (PLMR) licensees convert their radio system operations from legacy wideband (25 kilohertz) to narrowband (12.5 kilohertz or equivalent) operation by Jan. 1, 2013. That date is now just over 3 years away.

Contrary to what some may have heard or been led to believe, the Order does not require licensees to change to new radio frequencies or different frequency bands, nor does it require moving from analog to digital or from a conventional to a trunked radio system. However, they are options that some licensees may want to more fully explore with the guidance of a qualified radio communications system professional. The Order also doesn’t mean that licensees need to replace all their current radio system equipment — only any soon-to-be-non-compliant equipment.

What the FCC’s mandate does require is that all wideband-only conventional or trunked VHF and UHF radios, including handheld portables, vehicle-mounted mobiles, dispatcher stations, wireless data, telemetry, or supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) link radios (called subscriber radios) and any associated wideband-only conventional or trunked base or repeater stations (called infrastructure radios), be replaced with narrowband capable equipment prior to the 2013 date to continue legal use of Part 90 radio frequencies beyond that date. FCC radio system licenses must also be modified to reflect the change to narrowband emissions and operation.

Migration Steps

Over the last several years, in response to the mandate, many licensees have started the narrowband migration process by deploying dual-mode subscriber radios — those capable of both wideband and narrowband operation — as new radios have been added to their systems or as older wideband-only radios were lost, damaged beyond repair or otherwise removed from service. While this strategy is a practical, cost-effective approach, particularly by those with large numbers of subscriber radios in their fleets or those with multiple radio frequencies, base stations and repeaters in their systems, this method addresses only the first step of a multi-step process.

Unless a radio system is initially implemented as a narrowband system - as most new systems have been during the past eight to ten years - many dual-mode replacement subscriber radios deployed into pre-mandate or older, conventional or trunked VHF or UHF radio systems have typically been programmed for wideband rather than narrowband operation. This best-practices method was necessary to retain compatibility with existing wideband subscriber and infrastructure radios in use in those systems. (NOTE: the mixing of wideband and narrowband radios on the same frequency of a system is generally not encouraged nor recommended. Doing so has the potential to render most voice - and especially data - transmissions between wideband and narrowband radios unintelligible, distorted or unreliable). The method also allowed the expense of replacing infrastructure radios at the same time to be deferred, as the year 2013 seemed a long way off.

In many instances, however, the need to address the deferred replacement of wideband-only infrastructure radios may have inadvertently been overlooked or even forgotten by some licensees or radio system managers. This is particularly true when it comes to the many smaller business, educational, and industrial users of two way radio who typically don't keep up with current FCC Rules or the responsibilities that go along with being a Part 90 licensee, and, who quite often simply take the use and benefit of their radio systems for granted. Consider this post a "wake-up" call to all licensees that, until all subscriber and infrastructure radios are fully migrated to narrowband operation, many radio systems may still be operating in the wideband mode, which is legal only until Jan. 1, 2013.

Migration Planning

Has your company or organization developed a migration plan and budget to address the next steps necessary to complete the narrowband migration process and become fully FCC compliant? These steps include replacing any remaining wideband-only subscriber radios still being used; procuring and installing narrowband base stations, repeaters or other infrastructure radios as needed; preparing a well-planned, coordinated approach to re-programming all radios to narrowband operation; and modifying a radio station license to reflect any new emissions designators. Click here for more migration suggestions.

The 2013 date isn’t that far away, particularly if funding needs to be secured and budgets prepared or, when any operations dependent on uninterrupted radio communications may be jeopardized. Companies and organizations that recognize and appreciate the value of their Part 90 two-way voice and data radio communications systems are advised not to wait until the last minute to begin or complete the narrowbanding process. By waiting, they are risking not only the loss of use of their current radio frequencies, but the return on the investment (ROI) and associated benefits provided by their radio system equipment as well.

More Information

Follow these two links to official documents and complete background information on the FCC’s narrowbanding mandate:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-292A1.pdf (2004 Order)

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-271692A1.pdf (2007 Update)

For on-line discussions regarding the mandate, licensees and other interested parties are invited to join the LMR Narrowbanding Yahoo! Group

Additional Part 90 Narrowbanding information and resources are also available here: http://www.wirelessradio.net


NR

Are You Ready for FCC Part 90 UHF/VHF Radio System "Narrowbanding"?

In December 2004, the FCC issued an Order mandating that all Part 90 business, educational, industrial, public safety, and state and local government VHF (150 – 174 MHz) and UHF (421 – 512 MHz) private land mobile radio (PLMR) licensees convert their radio system operations from legacy wideband (25 kilohertz) to narrowband (12.5 kilohertz or equivalent) operation by Jan. 1, 2013.

Contrary to what some may have heard or been led to believe, the Order does not require licensees to change to new radio frequencies or different frequency bands, nor does it require moving from analog to digital or from a conventional to a trunked radio system. (These are, though, alternative radio system options that some licensees may want to more fully explore with the guidance of a qualified radio communications system professional.) The Order also doesn’t mean that licensees need to replace all their current radio system equipment — only any soon-to-be-non-compliant equipment.

What the FCC’s mandate does require is that all wideband-only conventional or trunked VHF and UHF radios, including handheld portables, vehicle-mounted mobiles, dispatcher stations, wireless data, telemetry, or supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) link radios (called subscriber radios) and any associated wideband-only conventional or trunked base or repeater stations (called infrastructure radios), be replaced with narrowband capable equipment prior to the 2013 date to continue legal use of Part 90 radio frequencies beyond that date. FCC radio system licenses must also be modified to reflect the change to narrowband emissions and operation.

Migration Steps

Over the last several years, in response to the mandate, many licensees have started the narrowband migration process by deploying dual-mode subscriber radios — those capable of both wideband and narrowband operation — as new radios have been added to their systems or as older wideband-only radios were lost, damaged beyond repair or otherwise removed from service. While this strategy is a practical, cost-effective approach, particularly by those with large numbers of subscriber radios in their fleets or those with multiple radio frequencies, base stations and repeaters in their systems, this method addresses only the first step of a multi-step process.

Unless a radio system is initially implemented as a narrowband system - as most new systems have been during the past six to nine years - many dual-mode replacement subscriber radios deployed into pre-mandate or older, conventional or trunked VHF or UHF radio systems have typically been programmed for wideband rather than narrowband operation. This best-practices method was necessary to retain compatibility with existing wideband subscriber and infrastructure radios in use in those systems. (NOTE: the mixing of wideband and narrowband radios on the same frequency of a system is generally not encouraged nor recommended. Doing so has the potential to render most voice - and especially data - transmissions between wideband and narrowband radios unintelligible, distorted or unreliable). The method also allowed the expense of replacing infrastructure radios at the same time to be deferred, as the year 2013 seemed a long way off.

In many instances, however, the need to address the deferred replacement of wideband-only infrastructure radios may have inadvertently been overlooked or even forgotten by some licensees or radio system managers. This is particularly true when it comes to the many smaller business, educational, and industrial users of two way radio who typically don't keep up with current FCC Rules or the responsibilities that go along with being a Part 90 licensee, and, who quite often simply take the use and benefit of their radio systems for granted. This blog post is a reminder to all licensees that until all subscriber and infrastructure radios are fully migrated to narrowband operation, many radio systems may still be operating in the wideband mode, which is legal only until Jan. 1, 2013.

Migration Planning

Has your company or organization developed a migration plan and budget to address the next steps necessary to complete the narrowband migration process and become fully FCC compliant? These steps include replacing any remaining wideband-only subscriber radios still being used; procuring and installing narrowband base stations, repeaters or other infrastructure radios as needed; preparing a well-planned, coordinated approach to re-programming all radios to narrowband operation; and modifying a radio station license to reflect any new emissions designators. Click here for more migration suggestions.

The 2013 date isn’t that far away, particularly if funding needs to be secured and budgets prepared or, when any operations dependent on uninterrupted radio communications may be jeopardized. Companies and organizations that recognize and appreciate the value of their Part 90 two-way voice and data radio communications systems are advised not to wait until the last minute to begin or complete the narrowbanding process. By waiting, they are risking not only the loss of use of their current radio frequencies, but the return on the investment (ROI) and associated benefits provided by their radio system equipment as well.

More Information

Follow these two links to official documents and complete background information on the FCC’s narrowbanding mandate:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-292A1.pdf (2004 Order)

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-271692A1.pdf (2007 Update)

or, for on-line discussions regarding the mandate, licensees and other interested parties are invited to join the LMR Narrowbanding Yahoo! Group


NR
(Re-post2)

Wireless Spectrum Links & Resources

Those concerned or interested in learning more about U.S. spectrum regulation and frequency allocation policies and their impact on radio and wireless communication devices may want to begin paying very close attention to the Notices, actions and decisions made by the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHS), and, their Office of Engineering and Technology (OET). More background information on spectrum policy, including the latest on the 700 MHz proceeding, can be found on the FCC's Spectrum Policy Task Force site. And, there's always the FCC's Daily Digest which provides a brief synopsis of Commission orders, news releases, speeches, public notices and all other FCC documents (with links to the full text of each) that are released each business day.

Finally, this 2006 paper Regulating Spectrum Management: Overview and Trends is intended to provide readers with a broad overview of wireless communications spectrum management concepts and issues, including a review of differences between traditional spectrum management methods and policy and recent innovations and practices due to technology advances. The approach taken is more descriptive than prescriptive, allowing readers to make up their own mind on various perspectives. It's interesting to note that the authors have found that there are no standard solutions that fit every situation.

Additional reading:

Spectrum Management Overview

Spectrum Policy and Planning

An introduction to spectrum management including best practices and considerations involved in the use and regulation of radio frequency spectrum. An outline of policy and planning considerations including technical standards and the allocation of spectrum.

Authorization

An overview of the processes by which users gain access to the spectrum resource.

Spectrum Pricing

A review of the role of spectrum pricing and economics as it relates to the method of spectrum authorization being employed.

Spectrum Monitoring and Compliance

An overview of how spectrum monitoring and compliance can help users by avoiding incompatible frequency usage through identification of sources of harmful interference.

International Affairs

An overview of international harmonization of spectrum utilization.

Developing Spectrum Management Capacity

An overview of the strategies for organization, function, process development, staffing, staff retention and training for spectrum regulators.

Oh yes.....I almost forgot; here's how you can "express yourself" should some of the Commission's activities or policies stir you to speak up about spectrum matters.


NR
(Repost)

RF (Wireless) Spectrum Information & Resource Links

Those concerned or interested in learning more about spectrum regulation and frequency allocation policies and their impact on radio and wireless communication devices and users in the U.S. may want to begin paying very close attention to the Notices, actions and decisions made by the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), their new Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHS), and, their Office of Engineering and Technology (OET). More background information on spectrum policy, including the latest on the 700 MHz proceeding, can be found on the FCC's Spectrum Policy Task Force site. And, there's always the FCC's Daily Digest which provides a brief synopsis of Commission orders, news releases, speeches, public notices and all other FCC documents (with links to the full text of each) that are released each business day.

Finally, this 2006 paper Regulating Spectrum Management: Overview and Trends is intended to provide readers with a broad overview of wireless communications spectrum management concepts and issues, including a review of differences between traditional spectrum management methods and policy and recent innovations and practices due to technology advances. The approach taken is more descriptive than prescriptive, allowing readers to make up their own mind on various perspectives. It's interesting to note that the authors have found that there are no standard solutions that fit every situation.

Additional reading:

Spectrum Management Overview

Spectrum Policy and Planning

An introduction to spectrum management including best practices and considerations involved in the use and regulation of radio frequency spectrum. An outline of policy and planning considerations including technical standards and the allocation of spectrum.

Authorization

An overview of the processes by which users gain access to the spectrum resource.

Spectrum Pricing

A review of the role of spectrum pricing and economics as it relates to the method of spectrum authorization being employed.

Spectrum Monitoring and Compliance

An overview of how spectrum monitoring and compliance can help users by avoiding incompatible frequency usage through identification of sources of harmful interference.

International Affairs

An overview of international harmonization of spectrum utilization.

Developing Spectrum Management Capacity

An overview of the strategies for organization, function, process development, staffing, staff retention and training for spectrum regulators.

Oh yes.....I almost forgot; here's how you can "express yourself" should some of the Commission's activities or policies stir you to speak up about spectrum matters.


NR

Cognitive Radio Technology for VHF/UHF Public Safety & Business/Industrial LMR

While doing some research for a client recently, I came upon a very interesting paper written earlier this year by Nancy Jesuale and Bernard Eydt titled "A Policy Proposal to Enable Cognitive Radio for Public Safety and Industry in the Land Mobile Radio Bands".

The authors offer some interesting perspectives on the age-old problems associated with LMR system interoperability (a "hot topic" today, particularly when considering the current state of Public Safety radio system interoperability in much of the U.S.), a historical account of FCC and NTIA spectrum regulation and policy, the lack of innovation in frequency allocations, and more.

They also make the suggestion that an emerging new technology known as Cognitive Radio (a term first coined in 1991 by Joseph Mitola) could improve spectrum efficiency and spectrum availability for all users in the VHF and UHF LMR bands. Here is the abstract:


"The frequency bands that have been licensed to the land mobile radio (LMR) services for decades are a tremendously fertile field for the deployment of cognitive radio technology. This paper outlines several reasons why policy-based cognitive radios would be particularly useful for modern public safety, federal non-military and business/industrial applications, especially in the VHF and UHF bands, where 80% of the public safety, federal and business/industrial licenses are currently held.

This paper argues that many interoperability deficiencies are directly related to the original approach to spectrum policy and radio frequency regulation developed in the early 1920's, which segmented uses of LMR spectrum into several use classes. It provides a historic perspective to explain why the current status of LMR infrastructure, operations and licensee behavior is a direct result of antiquated policies and technologies still applied and deployed in these bands. The paper discusses the reasons that cognitive radio could be a successful solution for the apparent congestion in the bands. It suggests that policy-based cognitive radio systems operated on a cooperative, shared basis could lower costs of use and aid coordination for emergency responders across both public and private sectors of the traditional LMR user community.

We discuss policy reforms and innovations such as spectrum pooling and spectrum portability that could spur new shared infrastructure development and spectrum efficiencies. We suggest several key policy reforms for consideration, including immediate cessation of ongoing narrowbanding initiatives, decoupling of spectrum licenses from spectrum access, and national spectrum management by frequency coordinators."


The paper (12 pages) is well worth the time to review for those interested or concerned with spectrum matters.


NR

Invitation to the Spectrum Matters On-Line Discussion Group

Advancements in wireless (RF or radio) communications and information technology over the last decade have unleashed a flood of new devices, products, and services, provocative ideas and intriguing questions, political rhetoric and posturing, market-place confusion, controversy, and, a growing concern by many as to whether FCC and NTIA spectrum allocation, regulation, use, and rules enforcement policies are 'keeping up with the times' - or with technology.

As one might expect, all this hullabaloo has led to increasing calls by wireless stakeholders for something called "spectrum reform" that we're hearing more and more about each day.

Spectrum Matters is an on-line, moderated Yahoo! discussion group focusing on member-shared wireless spectrum news, information, and trends, responsible opinion, debate, ideas, experiences, commentary, and questions related to the real or perceived social, economic, and technical benefits or consequences that may be realized by updating legacy and/or implementing new wireless spectrum management policy to effectively address these important issues and concerns.

Topics and discussions are targeted towards business, educational, industrial, enterprise, public safety, local, state, regional, federal government and similar types of PROFESSIONAL wireless mobile communication users who depend on access to the radio spectrum in their daily activities and who want to learn more about how and why wireless spectrum matters can, will, or already have had an impact on them.

If you are a professional wireless user and have an interest in wireless communications in general and spectrum issues in particular, please consider joining us. (Membership approval requires a response to a New Member Confirmation Request emailed to you during the sign-up process)

FCC to Sprint/Nextel - Get The Job Done Or......

The Nextel interference debacle just keeps dragging on and on and on.....


Here's a report on the latest developments courtesy of the 08/07/07 Wall Street Journal:


• The Warning: The FCC is pushing Sprint Nextel Corp. to put an end to the disruption that its wireless system causes in emergency radio communications because its broadcast spectrum is interwoven with one used by police and firefighters.

• The Deal: The company agreed in 2004 to pay to move its service and public-safety agencies to separate channels, and was awarded 10 megahertz of coveted spectrum as an incentive.

• What's Next: With political pressure rising, the FCC says it may dictate a solution if the company doesn't pick up the pace.


(For more background and insight on this almost 10 year old and still unresolved problem, do a Google search using "800 mhz" "nextel" "rebanding" and "public safety" as the search words or, read over 3000 other entries from the industry available on the FCC's electronic comment site - enter "02-55" in the "Proceedings" field, then click "Retrieve Document List" at bottom of form)


Clearing Emergency Radio Waves
FCC Presses Sprint on Cellphone
Static Hindering Police Spectrum
By COREY BOLES

August 7, 2007
Page A4 - The Wall Street Journal 08/07/07

Public-safety officials have been complaining for years about static from cellphones that disrupts emergency radio communications. Now the Federal Communications Commission is stepping up the pressure on Sprint Nextel Corp., the company whose signals are causing the most interference, to address the problem.

With talk of a renewed threat of a terrorist attack, the middle of the hurricane season approaching and the Minneapolis bridge collapse, some lawmakers are urging the FCC to take more control of the process. "The FCC needs to ensure that our police, firefighters and other first responders can use the spectrum without interference," says Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.). "Communication on these frequencies is essential for public safety."

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin warns that he wants to see progress soon, or the FCC will dictate a remedy. Sprint Nextel concedes it is taking longer than anticipated to solve the problem and attributes the delay to its efforts to do it as economically as possible.

The static is more than a nuisance. In Pennsylvania's Upper Uwchlan Township, police officers handling accidents on busy Route 100 regularly lose contact with dispatchers. Chief John De Marco says interference cut off a call he made during a traffic stop involving a fugitive; another time it happened when he was responding to a bank alarm. School-bus drivers, prison systems and utility workers have had calls interrupted by cellphone interference.

The problem has been intensifying with growing use of Sprint Nextel's network, the Nextel portion of which was created using a slice of the airwaves interwoven with the one used for emergency communications. Interference wasn't much of a problem when the spectrum was used as originally designated -- by construction crews, taxi drivers and other workers who needed souped-up walkie-talkies for short conversations.

In 2004, as use of Nextel service grew and static more frequently interrupted public-safety communications, the company, the FCC and safety groups agreed on a solution: Nextel would pay to move its service and public-safety agencies to separate channels. As an incentive, the FCC would give the company an additional 10 megahertz of coveted spectrum.

The company began negotiating with local public-safety agencies about the exact network upgrades they needed and how much the company would pay for them. The following year, Sprint Corp. acquired Nextel Communications Inc., making it necessary to mesh those two networks as well.

From the beginning, Sen. Lautenberg has questioned the legality of the deal. He says he remains concerned about the protracted process, in which hundreds of separate negotiations have ended up in mediation.

The fix was never expected to be easy or inexpensive. As part of its 2004 agreement with the FCC, Nextel promised to pay at least $4.86 billion - (up from Nextel's original offer of $800 million) - and complete the job in three years. But many of the negotiations between Sprint Nextel and local authorities have landed in protracted mediation while interference has continued. (So far, with only 11 months left to go in the 36 month time-frame mandated by the FCC, the majority of Public Safety systems throughout the U.S. have yet to complete the process and, the interference continues, pretty much unabated)

"There's no way we're going to meet the 36-month end date, and there's very little sense of how much this could ultimately cost," says Robert Gurss, a lawyer with Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth PLC and director of legal and government affairs for the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials International.

While switching channels might sound easy, it isn't. Wireless-network equipment used by thousands of public-service agencies across the country needs to be modified, as does every mobile phone or other radio device the agencies use. As a measure of how much ground still must be covered, Motorola Inc., a provider of equipment to the public-safety community, estimates it has shipped only 1% of the new phones and other equipment needed to complete the overhaul.

Ed Atkins, director of emergency services for Chester County, Pa., which includes Upper Uwchlan, has been negotiating for three yearswith Sprint to pin down the cost of preliminary studies to upgrade the police, fire and ambulance communications. He puts the initial costs at about $650,000, substantially more than Sprint's $400,000 offer.

Mr. Atkins sees the price of the entire conversion ranging from as little as $18.5 million to as much as $150 million, depending on how many radios need replacing and how much of the county's communications infrastructure needs to be overhauled. "I was told we were going to have our costs for this exercise covered," Mr. Atkins says. "I believe what people tell me: They say they are going to pay me. I believe they are going to pay me. It's very frustrating."

Sprint Nextel says by the end of this year, it will have spent about $1.5 billion. It acknowledges it has taken a tough stand in negotiations with public-safety officials, but cites that the original agreement specified that it spend at least $4.86 billion. If the full project costs less, the difference goes to the Treasury; if it costs more, the Reston, Va., company is responsible for the costs.

"Every dollar we spend is a dollar that doesn't go to the U.S. Treasury," says Lawrence Krevor, Sprint's senior vice president, government affairs. "We don't have a lot of discretion. In fact, we have very little discretion as to how we act here."

Some competitors may have been less than happy with the FCC's agreement to hand over coveted spectrum to Sprint. AT&T Inc. filed a complaint with the FCC in April in which it urged the agency to consider taking enforcement action, including possibly taking back the spectrum. The company says every time there is an incident of interference in areas in which it operates, it has to ensure it is not its signal which is causing the disruption, incurring costs in the process.

The FCC said Sprint should focus on getting the job done, not saving money for the Treasury. That statement "was a reflection of the commission's frustration with the current pace and a desire to motivate all the parties so that we really move forward in an expeditious manner," Mr. Martin says.

All sides acknowledge they hadn't anticipated just how difficult making changes would be. Public-safety networks, unlike commercial networks, can't be taken offline for repairs. "People's lives are hanging on this," said Steve Proctor, executive director of the Utah Communications Agency Network, which is supervising the channel switch in his state. "You're having to redesign and rebuild the airplane while it's still flying."

Write to Corey Boles at corey.boles @ dowjones.com


Better yet, write or contact your congressman, senator, local or state public safety agency and the FCC to voice your concerns about this serious life-safety issue today.

NR

Will The Failure of FCC Spectrum Auctions Impact 700 MHz?

hmmmm.....

According to this May 2006 paper from the Center for American Progress (quote) "The Federal Communications Commission’s auctioning of spectrum licenses is a failure. The auctions have been subject to collusion and manipulation by big business, and as a result have failed to meet legislative guidelines." (end quote)


(Quote) "Analysis of the last ten years of FCC spectrum auctions reveals that these auctions have met neither the standards nor the expectations expressed by Congress in their authorization. They do not facilitate the development of robust markets or meet the needs of the broader public interest. Instead these auctions, as they have been conducted, appear to serve the narrow interest of dominant actors in the telecommunications industry. They have systematically resulted in market concentration and the growth of the oligopolistic market power of major actors in the telecommunications industry. They have been pervious to manipulation by tacit collusion among bidders in ways which no minor amendment of the auction process could possibility remedy. Even the often made argument that FCC spectrum auctions maximize revenue fails in the face of both FCC mispricing of licenses, reflected in the large number of licenses which fail to be auctioned because no bidder meets the reserve price, and substantial evidence that strategic behaviors like preemptive bidding can guarantee better capitalized bidders licenses at consistently lower prices than their competitors. What has principally driven the adoption of spectrum auctions by the FCC and Congress has been ideologically-libertarian economic theory, captured in simplistic models which ignore inconvenient facts. Game theory is a powerful tool for analysis of economic behavior. However, a game-theoric model is only as good as its assumptions. Assumptions about information, bidder resources, risk-acceptance and -aversion, and the structure of bidder preference all matter, because they imply things about how the real world operates. All modeling is along a continuum between analytical tractability and empirical verisimilitude: the more mathematically tractable the model is, the less it resembles the real thing being modeled. It is for this reason that social scientists frequent evaluate and refine such models through experiments to see whether an analytically tractable model captures what really matters about the thing it models. The past ten years of FCC spectrum auctions have amounted to such an experiment, and the experiment demonstrates that the models on the basis of which Congress and the FCC were persuaded to adopt spectrum auctions fail dramatically in their prediction of real-world outcomes. When tested by the actual performance of such auctions, the chasm between the outcomes predicted by theory and the outcomes observed is immense. In sacrificing the public interest in pursuit of hypothesized market efficiencies and greater revenue we have arrived at the worst of both worlds: FCC spectrum auctions neither serve the public interest nor realize the promised economic efficiencies and revenue maximization touted by their advocates." (end quote)


(Quote) "Until the FCC can demonstrate that it can conduct auctions in the public interest, Congress should halt the ongoing plans to auction licenses to the public spectrum." (end quote)



Kinda makes one question just how small business entrepreneurs, women, minorities, and public safety/first responders will fare in the up-coming - and perhaps most important auction of all - that of the 700 MHz spectrum.


NR

Wireless Stakeholder Comments in 700 MHz Public Safety Proceeding

For your Memorial Day weekend reading pleasure, here's a compilation of all 300+ Comments made to the FCC by industry stakeholders in the 700 MHz Public Safety broadband proceedings (Dockets 96-86 & 06-229)....and a link to the 9th NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) for your attentive review -- offered in an effort to assist readers in learning more about why spectrum matters.


By the way, Reply Comments are due May 30th unless the Commission extends the date...if you have been thinking about "expressing yourself", now's the time to do so. You can file them here.


NR

An Invitation to the Spectrum Matters Discussion Group

Advancements in wireless (RF or radio) communications and information technology over the last decade have unleashed a flood of new products, services, provocative ideas, intriguing questions, political rhetoric, and marketing posturing - all of which has created a fair amount of confusion and growing concern by many as to whether current FCC and NTIA spectrum allocation, regulation, use, and rules enforcement policies are 'keeping up with the times'. As one might expect, this hullabaloo has led to increasing calls by wireless stakeholders for something called "spectrum reform" that we're hearing more and more about each day.

The Spectrum Matters discussion group focuses on news, information, opinion, responsible debate, and commentary related to the real or perceived social, economic, and technical benefits (or consequences) that may be realized by updating legacy and/or implementing new wireless spectrum management policy to effectively address these important issues.

Topics and discussions are targeted towards business, educational, industrial, enterprise, public safety, local, state, regional, federal government and similar types of PROFESSIONAL wireless mobile communication users who depend on access to radio spectrum in their daily activities and who want to learn more about how and why wireless spectrum matters can, will, or already have had an impact on them.

If you have an interest in wireless communications in general and spectrum issues in particular, please join us. Your ideas, experiences, opinions, and questions are welcome. Membership requires a response to a New Member Confirmation Request emailed to you during the sign-up process.

NR

"Next-Gen" Wireless Public Safety Communications

This May 2007 paper "Toward A Next-Generation Network for Public Safety Communications" (37 pages) authored by Dale N. Hatfield and Philip J. Weiser with the Silicon Flatirons Program at the University of Colorado School of Law is in part based on a two-day conference sponsored by the CTIA in April that brought together leaders of public safety and commercial wireless organizations - wireless user camps that have historically disagreed on subjects involving spectrum allocation (700 MHz issues are the most notable and recent debates) and the different and unique communications needs of each other.

“It was remarkable that the participants were able to reach a basic consensus on a number of key points in a debate where overheated rhetoric has sometimes obscured important common ground and concerns,” the report states, noting public safety’s pressing need for a next-generation network and a new policy model. With some continuing effort and hard work by both the commercial wireless and public safety communities, perhaps the political rhetoric and posturing can be replaced with a more responsible level of mutual understanding and consensus that will work for both groups, but more importantly, the general public.

Part I of the paper provides technological background, including the evolution of modern public safety communications systems and their attendant technological and operational limitations. It also addresses the technological requirements, architecture and possible constraints associated with a next generation network.

Part II looks at strategies for implementing a next generation architecture. It begins with a description of legacy regulatory strategies and proceeds to analyze possible policy strategies for a next generation network (along with its associated challenges and opportunities).

Part III sets out key concerns for the transition period, including working within the current technological framework, building a sustainable funding base, and establishing clear requirements and standards.

Finally, Part IV offers a short conclusion, one of which is that a public-private partnership arrangement might be the most realistic avenue to build and maintain a nationwide, next-generation wireless broadband network for public safety.

Well worth a read for anyone seriously involved, interested, or concerned about public safety spectrum matters.

NR

The FCC's Strategic Spectrum Plan - 2006 - 2011

In a prior post, I shared information on policy and use of that portion of the radio spectrum managed by the NTIA for Federal Government users.

However, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is charged with management and regulation of the spectrum (among their other responsibilities) for all other radio/wireless communication users.

Here's their 2006-2011 strategic plan (as of September, 2005) that gives one an idea of what to expect from the agency in the next 5 years, including:

• An overarching mission statement;
• General goals and objectives defining how the Commission will fulfill major
segments of its mission;
• A description of the means and strategies that will be used to achieve the
general goals and objectives;
• A description of the relationship between performance goals in the annual
performance budget and the strategic goal framework;
• Identification of key factors that could affect achievement of the general goals
and objectives; and
• A description of program evaluations used in preparing the Strategic Plan and a
schedule for future evaluations.

Readers specifically interested in radio and wireless communication spectrum matters should pay close attention to Notices, actions and decisions made by the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), the new Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHS), and, the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET). Additional information on spectrum policy can be found on the FCC's Spectrum Policy Task Force site.

Finally, here's how you can "express yourself" should some of the Commission's activities stir you out of complacency about spectrum matters.

NR

U.S. Wireless Spectrum Management Overview

This 2001 paper Federal Spectrum Management: How the Federal Government Uses and Manages the Spectrum from the NTIA describes some basic elements of spectrum management.

** 10/06/07 - The link to this paper is no longer functional **

** NTIA's Office of Spectrum Management site currently has no replacement link or any updated material available describing its spectrum management mission or goals

The closest information concerning the NTIA's spectrum management policies is located here or here **


It first explains what is meant by the term "the spectrum". Second it portrays the role of the Federal government as a major user of the spectrum explaining how the use of the spectrum is critical to the roles assigned the government agencies by the Congress and the President. Finally, the paper discusses how, why and by whom its use is regulated. It also includes a very informative Appendix with an in-depth overview of spectrum use by individual federal agencies.

(NOTE: Reportedly, the NTIA will be releasing an up-dated Federal Spectrum Use Report sometime this year.)

Use of the radio spectrum is critical to U.S. communications, and indeed, the national economy. In 1990, the value of shipments of radiocommunications equipment was estimated to be more than $55 billion. The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) recent auctions of portions of the spectrum for Personal Communications Services, and other services, has produced about $24 billion for the national treasury. Industries that use the spectrum to provide a service, such as broadcasting, cellular telephony and paging also make substantial contributions to the economy , as do manufacturing and service industries that use the spectrum to increase their productivity. Moreover, spectrum use is essential to government functions ranging from defense and public safety to air traffic control and weather forecasting. U.S. policies for managing the spectrum must ensure that the spectrum is used efficiently and fairly to promote the best interests of the public while promoting innovation and serving users’ needs. Current spectrum management policies — administered by the National Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA) for Federal government users, and by the FCC for all other users — are under increasing strain as the demand for existing spectrum-based services grow and new spectrum-related technologies and applications emerge.

This document is well worth a read for those interested in or concerned about spectrum matters.

NR

A Wireless Primer for CIO's & IT Managers

Wireless (RF) technology is increasingly becoming an element of responsibility within the domain of IT managers or CIO's.

Most CIOs are experienced with the management of IT projects centering on computer systems and applications but may have limited or no experience with wireless (RF) communications projects (such as LMR systems) that often support mission critical, lifesaving, or daily enterprise operations.

The management of LMR or wireless networks pose many unique challenges which cannot be dealt with in the same manner as those associated with managing typical IT networks.

The purpose of this primer is to assist CIOs who have been entrusted with the management of LMR networks in addressing potentially unfamiliar issues unique to such networks. This primer highlights some of the similarities and differences between LMR networks and traditional IT networks from the technical, programmatic, and business perspectives.

http://tinyurl.com/a9als (PDF File)

NR