Cell Phone "Jammers" = "Pandora's Box"

If you are one of those who are thinking of purchasing a so-called "signal blocker" or cell 'phone "jammer" -- an electronic device designed to curb the real or perceived inappropriate use of wireless phones in restaurants, theaters, commuter trains, hospitals, and other similar public gathering places -- and, which are being advertised and sold on numerous Internet web sites, you may not know or realize that such devices (with certain well-defined exceptions) are nonetheless illegal to use in the United States.


I won't bore you with a long dissertation on the supposed pros and cons of the devices or the consequences that could result from the unchecked and potentially dangerous use of them. Rather, I have chosen to share the following pertinent excerpts from the U.S. government and the FCC for your information instead.


FCC Public Notice DA # 05-1776 - June 27, 2005

Sale or Use of Transmitters Designed to Prevent, Jam or Interfere
with Cell Phone Communications is Prohibited in the United States

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-05-1776A1.html

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1776A1.pdf


Additionally, below are what appear to be the applicable Rules regarding "signal" or "cellular jamming" or similar devices. Perhaps the Commission should be sharing this information with those who apparently are in violation both Section 302 [47 U.S.C. 302], Section 333 [U.S.C 47 333] and, possibly other sections of the Act?

Communications Act of 1934, as
Amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996

TITLE III--PROVISIONS RELATING TO RADIO
PART I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 302. [47 U.S.C. 302] DEVICES WHICH INTERFERE WITH
RADIO RECEPTION.

(b) No person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or
ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use
devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated
pursuant to this section.

SEC. 333. [47 U.C.S. 333] WILLFUL OR MALICIOUS INTERFERENCE.

No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or
cause interference to any radio communications of any station
licensed or authorized by or under this Act or operated by the
United States Government.

TITLE V -- PENAL PROVISIONS -- FORFEITURES

SEC. 501. [47 U.S.C. 501] GENERAL PENALTY.

Any person who willfully and knowingly does or causes or suffers
to be done any act, matter, or thing, in this Act prohibited or
declared to be unlawful, or who willfully and knowingly omits or
fails to do any act, matter, or thing in this Act required to be
done, or willfully and knowingly causes or suffers such omission
or failure, shall upon conviction thereof, be punished for such
offense, for which no penalty (other than a forfeiture) is provided
in this Act, by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment
for a term not exceeding one year, or both; except that any person,
having been once convicted of an offense punishable under this
section, who is subsequently convicted of violating any provision
of this Act punishable under this section, shall be punished by a
fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for a term not
exceeding two years, or both.

SEC. 502. [47 U.S.C. 502] VIOLATION OF RULES, REGULATIONS,
AND SO FORTH.

Any person who willfully and knowingly violates any rule,
regulation, restriction, or condition made or imposed by the
Commission under authority of this Act, or any rule, regulation,
restriction, or condition made or imposed by any international
radio or wire communications treaty or convention, or regulations
annexed thereto, to which the United States is or may hereafter
become a party, shall, in addition to any other penalties provided
by law, be punished, upon conviction thereof, by a fine of not
more than $500 for each and every day during which such offense
occurs.

SEC. 510. [47 U.S.C. 510] FORFEITURE OF COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES.

(a) Any electronic, electromagnetic, radio frequency, or similar
device, or component thereof, used, sent, carried, manufactured,
assembled, possessed, offered for sale, sold, or advertised with
willful and knowing intent to violate section 301 or 302, or
rules prescribed by the Commission under such sections,
may be seized and forfeited to the United States.

The text of the entire Act can be found here:

http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf


In view of the above, consider yourselves forewarned about the use of "jammers" ......because spectum matters.


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)

FCC Mulls Value vs Efficiency of Licensed vs Unlicensed Wireless Spectrum

After being silent on spectrum matters for almost 5 years, the FCC's OSP (Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis) has issued 3 new working papers on potential spectrum management policy now being evaluated.

Working Paper #41, “Enhancing Spectrum’s Value Via Market-informed Congestion Etiquettes”

Working Paper #42, “Modeling the Efficiency of Spectrum Designated to License Use and Unlicensed Operations,” examine ways in which spectrum designated to licensed and unlicensed use can be more efficiently used.

Working Paper #43, “A Market-based Approach to Establishing Licensing Rules: Licensed Versus Unlicensed Use of Spectrum,” examines the feasibility of employing a market mechanism to determine whether spectrum should be designated to either licensed or unlicensed use.

According to the Commission's press release:

Working Paper #41, “Enhancing Spectrum’s Value Via Market-informed Congestion Etiquettes” and Working Paper #42, “Modeling the Efficiency of Spectrum Designated to License Use and Unlicensed Operations,” examine ways in which spectrum designated to licensed and unlicensed use can be more efficiently used.

Combining economic theory and experimental analysis, Working Paper #41 (and its more theoretical companion Working Paper #42) evaluates the ability of different wireless spectrum congestion etiquettes to promote the efficient use of wireless spectrum in the presence of licensed and unlicensed operations. Under the examined environment, theory predicts that society leaves half of the value it can receive from spectrum “on the table.”

One new approach utilizes various types of user information to address the inefficient use problem. Assuming a close similarity between the naturally occurring environment and the experimental one, analysis reveals that the average efficiency of the existing etiquette employed in most unlicensed equipment is 42%. In comparison, experimental analysis reveals that the average efficiency of one market-informed etiquette - the Informed Greedy Algorithm - is 70%.

This and other results form the factual basis for generating an entirely new type of spectrum allocation wherein a given band of spectrum is treated as a common pool resource in the absence of excessive spectrum congestion, but is treated as an excludable private good in the presence of such congestion.

Working Paper #43, “A Market-based Approach to Establishing Licensing Rules: Licensed Versus Unlicensed Use of Spectrum,” examines the feasibility of employing a market mechanism to determine whether spectrum should be designated to either licensed or unlicensed use.

Working Paper #43 addresses the issue of how best to identify the most desirable allocation rules for spectrum. This OSP paper focuses on issues associated with licensed use and unlicensed operations. Spectrum designated to unlicensed use is made freely available for uses that comply with appropriate technical standards. Spectrum allocated to licensed use is typically assigned to license owners through an auction. Moreover, winners of the auction are granted the right to exclude non-payers from using their spectrum. The allocation between licensed and unlicensed use, however, is based on the FCC’s judgment, which in turn relies on information provided by interested parties seeking to use the spectrum.

One method of reducing the incentive that parties have to exaggerate the value they place on a given licensing regime involves creating a market for such rules. The study examines the feasibility of using a “clock auction” to determine, based on bids submitted by market participants for the corresponding licensing rules, the efficient allocation of a given amount of spectrum between licensed and unlicensed spectrum use. This study finds that market forces, in the form of a clock auction, can be used to determine the efficient assignment of license rules (i.e., those associated with licensed use and unlicensed operations) to spectrum.

If you are at all interested in or concerned about the FCC's future spectrum allocation and management agendas, these papers deserve your attention - and your input. Catherine Bohigian is Chief of the Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis. Elizabeth Andrion is Deputy Chief. The Commission's Chief Economist, Greg Crawford, also makes his home in OSP and he reports to the Chairman on economic issues. Ms. Bohigian, Ms. Andrion, and Dr. Crawford can be contacted by phone at (202) 418-2030.


NR

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)

Radio, Wireless, & the Internet -- A Transformative Technology

Fellow blogger Susan Crawford has another excellent post to her blog which I would strongly encourage folks to read for a bit of historical yet very timely deja vu....

Here's an excerpt to get you headed over there:

Transformative Technology

"Another technology was said to overcome key barriers between the voter and the candidate: the barriers of distance, of time, of inertia, and of crowd psychology. It brought to the physically remote voter a type of first-hand information he had never had before.

There was great excitement. Would this new technology prick into quicker, more coherent action our unwieldy democratic giant? Or with its shining novelty would its seeming power too be gone? What were the inherent political potentialities of this new technology? Aside from the immense publicity value which its newness gave it, what could it actually effect in a presidential election?

The new technology was remarkable. It had found a way to dispense with political middlemen. In a fashion it had restored the demos upon which republican government is founded. No candidate would be able to stand up to it who was unprepared to enlighten the electorate. It potentially gave to every member of the electorate the possibility of a direct reaction to the candidates themselves. It reproduced to some degree, for the first time in the United States, the conditions of the Athenian democracy where every voter, for himself, could hear and judge the candidates.

The year was 1924: “…America finds herself this year in the act of virtually choosing her chief executive by an instrument that was up to a brief two years ago generally considered a freakish fad.”

You'll have to visit her site for the balance of her post, but, she's absolutely correct - radio or RF (now commonly labeled "wireless") and Internet technology has and will continue to transform virtually every aspect of our lives and the world in which we live.

Yet another of the many reasons why spectrum matters.....


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

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

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

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

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

Spectrum Matters Discussion Group established

For those reading this blog (or am I still on my own?) who may wish to engage in further discussions or, share their ideas or concerns about wireless spectrum matters in a forum or group setting, here's good news. Please visit the new Spectrum Matters discussion group on Yahoo! established just for that purpose. (Free registration required)

This moderated, spam-free group focuses on news, information, opinion, responsible debate, and commentary on all matters related to the potential social, economic, and technical benefits (or consequences) to be realized by updating legacy and/or implementing new wireless spectrum management policy in the United States.

Topics and discussions are targeted towards business, educational, industrial, enterprise, public safety, local, state, regional, federal government and similar types of PROFESSIONAL wireless users who depend on 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. Membership requires a response to a New Member Confirmation Request emailed to you during the sign-up process.

NR

Apply "Litmus Test" to New Wireless Technology

Having spent the last 30+ years in the private land mobile two-way radio and mobile communications business - where "wireless" first began, by the way - I've often been both intrigued and thoroughly disgusted (sometimes simultaneously) with some of the marketing "hype" and often false (ok - is "misunderstood" a better word?) promises offered to wireless spectrum users by many players in today's "new" wireless industry. This has been particularly true when it comes to some of the technology "stuff" that professional and Public Safety wireless users have had to sort out. Without boring you with all that bothers me (and the reasons why), may I instead encourage you to take a moment to read this before making any rash moves regarding the alleged capabilities and purported suitability of some of the new "whiz-bang" wireless products and services you've been hearing about lately?

Thanks! Perhaps we'll both feel better if you do; I know I will.

NR