Tweet the FCC on Twitter

To stimulate public dialogue over the development of a National Broadband Plan, (GN Docket 09-51) the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has initiated a new blog called "Blogband." The blog will chronicle the development of the broadband plan and invites comments from its readers.

Take a look here: http://blog.broadband.gov/

And, the Commission also has joined the Twitter revolution:

http://www.twitter.com/fccdotgov

Nice to see the folks on the 8th floor at the Portals finally making an effort - albeit a somewhat radical one - to reach out to America (and the rest of the world as well), particularly in view of the way former Chairman Martin communicated with the public.

I'm sure the "new" FCC will get much more "dialog" and "stimulation" than they may be expecting from these initiatives once the general public discovers them (there are already over 10,000 responses to the Broadband Plan on the FCC's ECFS site). There's no doubt that both of these new sites will be ones to keep your eye on.

NR

GAO Report: FCC Violates Rulemaking Info Flow

A new report from the GAO (Government Accounting Office) titled “FCC Should Take Steps to Ensure Equal Access to Rulemaking Information,” says:

"As a regulatory agency, FCC is routinely lobbied by stakeholders with a vested interest in the issues FCC regulates. It is critical that FCC maintain an environment in which all stakeholders have an equal opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process AND that the process is perceived as fair and transparent.

Situations where some, but not all, stakeholders know what FCC is considering for an upcoming vote undermine the fairness and transparency of the process and constitute a violation of FCC's rules.

Since the success of lobbying for a particular issue can be highly dependent on whether an issue is being actively considered, FCC staff who disclose nonpublic information about when an issue will be considered could be providing an advantage to some stakeholders, allowing them to time their lobbying efforts to maximize their impact. As a result, FCC may not hear from all sides of the issue during an important part of the rulemaking process. This imbalance of information is not the intended result of the Communications Act, and it runs contrary to the principles of transparency and equal opportunity for participation established by law and to FCC's own rules that govern rulemaking."


The GAO report really isn't much of a surprise, at least to those of us who have been involved in the communications industry for any length of time; it's been quite evident for many years that the lobbying process itself has been more-than-a-little slanted in favor of large corporate entities (wireless and wireline telecommunication incumbents, media, and the broadcast folks come to mind here)......this report seems to "officially" validate that evidence albeit the facts are based on just a very small sample of the FCC's many proceedings.

Perhaps the GAO auditors should return and dig a bit deeper; so far, they've only managed to scratch the surface of what many believe may be a larger problem within this agency. Oh, by the way, the FCC declined to comment or refute the GAO's report.


NR

OMG! - FCC labeled Washington's Worst Communicator

There were a few provocative(?) insightful (?) revealing (?) stories in the media today regarding the FCC's public communications skills....

This AP story by John Dunbar "FCC's Methods Leaves Public in the Dark" suggests "It's odd for an agency that has the word "communications" as its middle name" to "routinely leave the public in the dark about how it makes critical policy decisions".

Cynthia Brumfield at The IP and Democracy site follows up with a claim that "the FCC is the worst communicator in Washington". "Clear answers are rare and, indeed, FCC rules dictate that agenda items (those issues to be voted upon by the Commissioners) are “non-public” information. Employees can get fired if they disclose anything the FCC is planning". She also provides links to a couple of additional pieces written by Ted Hearn at MultiChannel News who labeled the agency the “Federal Incommunicado Commission”.

She adds even more fuel to the fire by ranking the Commissions web site as a "nightmare"--- a real nightmare.

Frankly, I don't understand what all the hullabaloo is about. The FCC long ago abdicated its responsibility to openly communicate with the general public (along with certain other spectrum management related duties) and is now the best corporate and special interest facilitating entity that money and lobbying can buy. I guess some folks just can't get used to the way business is done at the Portals these days, but I can assure you that there's good reason for it. Just continue on as usual (spectrum matters are out of your league, anyway, right?) and everything will turn out just fine....


NR

Imports, Toys, Food, and the FCC.....

If toy and food imports from China (and certain other countries) have managed to get through various government inspection systems designed to protect the often unenlightened public from nasty surprises, do you suppose it is at all possible that non-compliant electromagnetic-emitting electronic devices having the potential to pollute the RF spectrum might have evaded these systems as well?

For some insight to this question, you should read this commentary authored by fellow blogger Michael Marcus, a retired FCC engineer who (as per his blog) "focused on developing policies for cutting edge radio technologies such as spread spectrum, CDMA, and millimeter waves. The rules for Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and most of the cordless phones sold in the U.S. are one outcome of his early leadership. He also had several key roles in the FCC’s Spectrum Policy Task Force."

Having been in the wireless communications industry for over 30 years, I've seen and experienced some of what he describes and, must agree with him regarding the business practices that some electronic equipment producers employ simply to maximize their profits. Unfortunately, many of them consider the few paltry fines imposed as "just a cost of doing business" and write the expense off.

Protection of the wireless/RF spectrum seems to have been relegated to the regulatory rear burner in many respects in favor of the many real or perceived economic benefits purportedly to be derived from this natural resource. Only after-the-fact, when problems surface, is any type of remedial action taken and, often, in the opinion of many, such action is both ineffective and mis-applied.

Much more proactive attention needs to be focused on protecting us from imports and U.S. produced products of ALL types - including those that emit unwanted electromagnetic radiation that can disrupt radio and wireless communications. We can ill-afford having to contend with any "spectrum disaster" created by the lack of ongoing and aggressive enforcement of spectrum policy and rules.


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)

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

Public Safety Communications - Time For A New Approach

Public Safety first-responder communication problems have been with us for quite sometime. However, new provocative proposals suggesting that the FCC review current communications and wireless spectrum allocation and management policies - ranging from public/private spectrum partnerships to allocating a larger portion of spectrum to public safety - are now being hotly debated by stakeholders on all fronts.

At a March 2007 Congressional Seminar titled "Public Safety Communications: Time for a New Approach" hosted by The Progress & Freedom Foundation, many of these proposals were discussed to provide policymakers with a complete overview of policy options. Complete statements from the panelists and questions from attendees can be found in the event transcript, but here's a general overview of the seminar:

Michael Calabrese, Vice President and Director of the Wireless Future Program at the New America Foundation, identified four faulty assumptions about public safety communications that must be reversed in order to meaningfully reform spectrum policy. First, that public safety requires exclusive spectrum and proprietary equipment. Second, that commercial and existing wireless networks should not be used for public safety purposes. Third, that local jurisdictions should not be subjected to national standardization. Finally, that policies should still focus on narrowband voice applications. He also suggested, "the most important reform would push public safety to share spectrum and multi-purpose broadband networks with both commercial and public WiFi networks."

Jeffrey Eisenach, Chairman of Criterion Economics, expressed concern that new public safety spectrum proposals could derail the carefully negotiated digital television transition, which will free up spectrum for public safety and other purposes. Eisenach also took issue with social policies, such as commercial buildout requirements, contained in some new public safety communications proposals. "If we're going to impose encumbrances in that spectrum, it ought to be focused on public safety, not on industrial policy and a... social agenda, which really doesn't have any place in this debate," he explained.

Michael Gallagher, Partner at Perkins Coie, LLP, reviewed current government action in the public safety space, including the roles of the Department of Commerce and Department of Homeland Security. Gallagher also stressed the importance of interoperability for first responder communications. He explained that "new networks must be regional, digital, interoperable networks. They can no longer be so independent, certainly they shouldn't be analog," he continued. "We have to be moving into an environment where these are shared architectures."

Steven Jones, Executive Director of the First Response Coalition, described a new study issued by his organization which examined state level interoperability efforts. Jones stated that the report, "arrived at the following conclusions: One, funding remains the major hurdle to achieving interoperability. Two, first responder communications systems are being created and upgraded with new technologies without large spectrum allocations. And three, there is a distinct need for adherence to technical standards to better insure equipment deployed across jurisdictions in compatible."

Janice Obuchowski, Chairman of Frontline Wireless, discussed Frontline’s FCC proposal that would allocate 12 megahertz of spectrum for public safety with the option of pre-empting commercially used spectrum. "I, in fact, think what the FCC has advanced, what many people in this room are advancing, is something approaching a going forward vision that we... build a network, a nationwide network that public safety can use and that innovators can use on fair and equal terms."

Charles Werner, EFO/CFO and Fire Chief of the Charlottesville Fire Department, voiced support for a "public safety broadband trust" and argued against confining use of the newly released spectrum to new technologies. Werner explained, "While all of you say that none of the spectrum should be given to old technology, I can tell you there are departments today that need spectrum, because of congestion on what they have, especially in the metropolitan cities. This restriction in place would tie our hands to be able to solve the problems that we need to solve today."

As one can see after reading the full transcript of this seminar, spectrum matters are of great concern to many for a variety of reasons; it might be wise to be paying closer attention as to why since the subject goes much deeper and impacts more than just Public Safety.

NR

700 MHz Auction - A Spectators "Field Guide"

For your reading pleasure, here's a few links to almost everything you might want to know about the FCC's up-coming 700 MHz auction - likely to be the most important spectrum allocation proceeding in recent history - brought about by significant advances in technology and our society's rapidly changing life-style.

The first - from Harold Feld's 'Tales of the Sausage Factory' blog - is an interesting, informative, and, if nothing else, definitely entertaining (well, sort of) spectators "field guide" to the proceeding:

Excerpts:

Few events in the wireless world matter so much, yet get so little coverage, as the upcoming 700 MHz wireless auction. Why? Because they're hard, and the mainstream media (MSM to us "bloggers") are afraid you will get all confuzzled and bored. Besides, isn't non-stop coverage of Anna Nichole Smith more satisfying? (Hint: She's still dead.)

Issues include network neutrality, open access, wireless competition, the future of broadband competition, and a whole lot of public safety stuff. It includes a cast of thousands from Frontline to Cyren Call to the Ad Hoc Public Interest Spectrum Coalition (I thought up the name myself! O.K., I was in a rush . . . .) and an army of incumbents that like the universe just the way it is, thank you and do not look kindly on those of us trying to shake things up.

I warn you, this is extremely long (13 pages, I probably should have broken it up into more than one post), and complicated, and all that stuff that mainstream media figures your pretty lil' heads can't handle without getting all confuzzled. So, if ye be readers of courage, willing to risk getting all confuzzled and thinking about how our wireless and broadband future will unfold for the next 10-15 years, read on! Or you can go back to Google News and plug in "Anna Nichole Smith" (yup, still dead).

The second - 700 MHz: A Pivotal Auction: Who, What, When, Where, Why - from Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc., a multi-disciplined financial services firm, is an overview focusing on the technical "nuts and bolts" and economic aspects of this very significant event.

Both are well worth a few minutes of your time if you are at all interested in wireless spectrum matters.

NR

Wireless Spectrum Auctions - An Alternative Viewpoint

Interesting reading for those who are curious about the Federal Communication Commission's fascination with auctions for the allocation of wireless (RF) spectrum.

Spectrum Auctions Are Not a Panacea: Theory and Evidence of Anti-Competitive and Rent-Seeking Behavior in FCC Rulemakings and Auction Design, authored by Simon Wilkie, former Chief Economist at the Federal Communications Commission and now Director, Center for Communication Law and Policy, University of Southern California in March of 2007.

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

Crowded Spectrum Prompts Need for National Spectrum Coordinator

Here are several excerpts from a Feb 1 2007 article in Military Information Technology relating to the importance of paying attention to spectrum matters.

...spectrum management issues (are) now being confronted within the Department of Defense. Wireless voice and data communications are of ever-growing tactical significance to a networked fighting force. But the introduction of increased radio-based capabilities also results in the greater probability that signals will clash with one another. The Pentagon is taking steps, both at the policy and operational levels, to mediate among competing demands for radio frequencies on the battlefield...

but, ...the quest for access to the electromagnetic frequency spectrum is not limited to the military. Homeland security operations, first responders and commercial interests all have their growing needs for spectrum. In reality, the military competes for spectrum with these other users.

...there will be a tug-of-war between corporate America, wanting to allocate radio spectrum to business and consumer applications, and U.S. defense agencies desiring to allot spectrum to military applications...

...Business interests will deploy their lobbyists to justify why they deserve a certain amount of spectrum, and DoD will have to justify its needs. At the end of the day, they will all have to come to the table and make it work.

...the prospect of protracted battle between national security agencies and the private sector over the control of spectrum also speaks to the need for a single national authority to develop and execute an all-encompassing spectrum strategy.

...A national chief spectrum officer is going to need to be an honest broker, a renaissance man or woman who understands that spectrum is a critical resource...(NOT simply an economic development tool or commodity to be sold to the highest bidder)


The last excerpt will be the most challenging and difficult spectrum management element of all but, in my view, it's one that is absolutely necessary as our reliance and dependency on all things wireless continues to increase.

NR

FCC Diversifies - Now Managing Child Obesity Issues

Diversification may be a smart option for many these days - "never put all your eggs in one basket" as the saying goes - but, in my opinion, a recent initiative by the FCC takes diversification to the extreme. Not only that, the subject the folks at the Portals are now promoting has absolutely nothing to do with spectrum matters per se. (They've even gone so far as to set up a Task Force with a web page on the FCC's web site - complete with animation AND audio no less, to support this initiative).

To be fair, the FCC has become involved through their activities concerning the regulation of television, broadcast media, and the advertising carried by it that is targeted towards children. But, while child obesity is a problem needing attention, it seems to me that there are other government agencies more suitable and effective at leading this initiative, not to mention those duties and responsibilities that are best carried out by the parents of these children in monitoring what their child watches or hears, or, in this case, eats and drinks.

In my view, there needs to be LESS of this type of diversification at the FCC. In fact, the Commission needs to return to its fundamental root purpose in life and concentrate its efforts on the management, allocation, and enforcement of its Rules and the protection of the electromagnetic (RF) spectrum rather than on matters of child obesity and other baby-sitting duties.

NR

Spectrum and Improving Public Safety Communications

The author of this paper has some interesting views on how the government could improve Public Safety communications. While many of his points are indeed valid, very serious consideration, debate, and well-thought-out implementation strategies will be needed to bring his ideas to life.

Read the paper and decide for yourself here: http://www.issues.org/23.2/peha.html


NR

A Brief Comparison of Spectrum Policy Methods

For the typical individual, attempting to understand or comprehend why spectrum matters is not an easy nor simple task, which more than likely explains why most don't even bother. For these folks, perhaps reading this short paper describing the three major areas of thought regarding spectrum policy will help put much of what you hear or have read on the subject into the proper context.

A Comparative Analysis of Spectrum Management Regimes

By Johannes M. Bauer
Department of Telecommunication, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
(Undated)

DRAFT. FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION ONLY.

Abstract

Spectrum management influences the evolution of the mobile communications industry. Administrative "command and control" spectrum management, "market-based" approaches, and "commons" or "open spectrum" approaches are analyzed. These methods have unique advantages and disadvantages and no single approach is superior on all counts. Optimal spectrum policy will have to determine the right mix of these methods rather than adopting one model.

Basically, what this paper says is that balanced spectrum management policies are needed to satisfy the wireless communications requirements of all competing spectrum users. Unfortunately, not only is there NO up-to-date official spectrum policy in the United States to guide us, but the current methods of management and allocation (not to mention Rules enforcement) of the spectrum are not by any means well-balanced - other than in terms of how many dollars the government is able to place in the Treasury by selling the airwaves. (But wait; that's another issue all by itself, and may be the topic of a future post.)

NR

Welcome to Spectrum Matters!

This is the inaugural post for this new blog, one of potentially many to come, which, hopefully, over time, will attract the attention of those interested, involved, or concerned about a resource we all, more or less, seem to be taking pretty much for granted. One that most folks, even though it's becoming more and more embedded in their daily lives and activities, really have little to no knowledge or understanding of. A resource that has become increasingly important to U.S. national (and local) defense and our economic well-being. And, a resource that, IF wisely managed, allocated, and, yes, responsibly regulated by the FCC and our government, and, IF products and services are responsibly marketed and promoted to users, can (and already has, in certain aspects) continue to improve our quality of life. This resource is know as the electromagnetic radio or RF or wireless spectrum and, this blog will attempt to inform and educate readers why Spectrum Matters.


NR