U.S. Spectrum Management according to Wikipedia.....

The folks at the Portals (FCC) and the NTIA might be interested in this....

Current Spectrum Management in the United States

Wireless (RF or radio) spectrum management in the United States should be a cooperative exercise in balancing disparate stakeholder interests through effective user education and the enforcement of regulatory policies and rules that reflect practical reality, political responsibility, economic common sense, and, an understanding of the laws of physics. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

There is no concise, up-to-date, national radio/RF/wireless spectrum management policy practiced by the FCC and/or the NTIA in the U.S today. In addition, either very out-dated, convoluted, complex or very lax or non-existent regulation (often determined by the agendas of political and special interest groups more than by anything else) is the norm, with little effective enforcement of spectrum use rules.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_management

It looks like the word is beginning to get out to the general public if one takes Wikipedia's definition at face value....although, when one thinks about it, the definition really isn't that far off the mark - is it?

NR

NTIA Phase 2 BPL Report Finally Released - 3 Years Late

Hmmmm.....so the Feds have finally released the long-awaited Phase 2 BPL Report titled "Potential Interference From Broadband Over Power Line (BPL) Systems To Federal Government Radiocommunication Systems at 1.7 - 80 MHz". (That's the military HF, Amateur, and shortwave radio broadcast spectrum for those who might not know.)

How timely. It's only been 3 years since the NTIA's original Phase 1 report which warned of the potential for harmful interference to LICENSED users that very well could (and have) resulted from the deployment of UN-licensed, Part 15 BPL technology in that portion of the spectrum. The Phase 2 BPL report was supposed to have been issued several months later, but was never made public. One excuse offered for the delay was that there were only 2 report writers within the NTIA to author the Phase 2 report; however, in the opinion of many in the know, the completion and release of the report was deliberately withheld for strategic political reasons.

It's interesting to note that during this 3 year gap, the FCC managed to rush/push/shove their BPL Rules through the regulatory system despite the well-presented and documented concerns and objections of many users of this spectrum. (See the Comments and Reply Comments in the FCC's ET Docket 04-37 for more background and insight on this proceeding.)

It's also telling that a recent report from NATO (9 MB file) seems to contradict some of the findings of the Phase 2 BPL report. I wonder how often certain elements of this report have been "revised" or glossed over in the last 3 years in an attempt to soften the impact of this "spectrum polluting" technology and promote the well-intended but mis-guided notion of BPL providing the so-called "3rd pipe" for wireless broadband access in rural areas?

Finally, isn't it odd that the release of the Phase 2 report comes on the same day the the FCC's own Inspector General released a report that claims the FCC did not withhold similar reports that were not entirely favorable to its policy positions? (Why do I have my doubts?)

Me thinks there is something not quite right here, but, as a good friend often says, I could be wrong....


NR

NATO Issues Warning on BPL and the HF Radio Spectrum

NATO's (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) research and technology arm recently issued a report warning of the potential impact that can be expected by the widespread deployment of BPL (Broadband over Power Lines - also referred to as PLC or PLT) in the HF portions of the RF spectrum.

What's important to understand here (and what most people don't realize) is that BPL technology, in case you were unaware, has never-the-less been approved for deployment in the U.S. by the Federal Communications Commission and the NTIA, to the dismay of many shortwave radio listeners, amateur radio operators, public safety communication system managers, high seas marine radio users, and military LMR and airborne radio system operators. (Take some time to review these comments from the FCC proceedings on this matter for further background and insight)

The entire report (9MB) titled "HF Interference, Procedures and Tools" includes this Executive Summary:

This Report presents the results of the work carried out by IST-050/RTG-022, the Research Task Group (RTG) on “HF Interference, Procedures and Tools”, to address the concerns raised by the potential for unintentional radio interference to be caused by the widespread operation of broadband wire-line telecommunications systems.

PowerLine TeleCommunications (PLT, PLC) and various forms of Digital Subscriber Line (xDSL) transmissions use the existing mains electricity or telephone wiring including in-premises cables for telecommunications with data rates higher than 1 MBit/s. As these lines were not designed for such broadband transmissions, they will cause unintentional RF emissions which may adversely affect the established radio noise floor directly, or by cumulative propagation from many such sources. The existing HF background noise possibly may be increased via ground wave and/or sky wave propagation.

Increase of the existing HF noise floor by widespread use of PLT and/or xDSL will bring up problems for Military Radio Users as well as for HF Communication Intelligence (COMINT) in all NATO countries. The signal-to-noise ratio thus may be reduced for tactical and strategic HF radio as well as for fixed sensitive COMINT sites.

Exact calculations of HF radio noise emissions from the new broadband wire-line telecommunications networks were impossible because of missing models for these transmission systems. Therefore methods have been investigated to find procedures, models and tools applicable for being able to determine the influence of PLT and xDSL on reception of HF radio signals. These are described in this report.

The RTG addressed itself to the HF radio emission effects of the new broadband cable transmissions. It investigated and found means that allow calculation of cumulative field strengths of HF noise radiated by PLT or xDSL. This will enable NATO and its nations to determine the threat to military HF radio communications and COMINT systems from PLT and xDSL and to take the appropriate steps. It should be noted here that the determination of the nature and the severity of any possible detrimental effect upon the military systems was outside the RTG’s expertise and ToR.

The RTG chose to concentrate its work on the PLT issue rather than xDSL because PLT will produce the most problems regarding HF interference (power lines have less symmetry and will have impedance discontinuities), they will be deployed in large numbers, and finally the current versions of xDSL have no documented HF interference-causing problems, while the VDSL variants covering the entire HF range are still in the definition phase.

In the course of the studies, the RTG determined that ITU-R P.372-8 noise curves (based on measurements carried out in the 1970s) are still valid in Europe. Recent measurements carried out in Germany and Great Britain indicated that there is no remarkable difference between these measurements, specifically no increase of the ambient noise in quiet rural zones within the last 30 years.

Based on these measurement results, the cumulative interference field strengths far away from telecommunication networks should not be higher than –15 dBìV/m (9 kHz bandwidth) across the entire HF range, if no measurable increase in minimum noise levels are to be tolerated. The RTG refers to this criterion as the Absolute Protection Requirement. It should be noted that this value is in the range of 10 to 1 dB below the ITU-R P.372-8 Quiet Rural noise curve, which are median values, across the HF band.

A couple of important tasks in the RTG’s work, namely, the appropriate measurement techniques and the most suitable propagation path loss models for interference studies, were addressed and completed.

The quantity of interest when considering cumulative effects in the far-field is the EIRP (equivalent (or effective) isotropic radiated power) per unit bandwidth caused by each signal source, in units of dBm/Hz, at different frequencies. The radiation pattern might also be of interest in some cases, but when summing up many different sources with different wiring geometries over a wide area, it is reasonable to approximate the average radiation pattern as isotropic (in elevation as well as in azimuth).

In modeling the emissions from an overhead Access PLT line, the PLT wires can be modeled as a successive set of dipoles, assuming that the standing waves present are the dominant emission source. Given the PLT geometry, the cylindrical coordinate system is more practical rather than the spherical coordinate system generally used in electromagnetics. In the vicinity of a PLT, up to 200 metres, the use of the expression for the exact solution of a dipole is recommended, which is valid at any distance in both near-field and far-field.

The RTG has developed a “Cumulative PLT Tool”, which was used to perform cumulative PLT noise calculations at several hypothetical sensitive receiver locations. For each receiver location and frequency, the percentage of parameter combinations was computed where the estimated cumulative PLT noise level is above the quiet rural level, above quiet rural +6 dB, and above the rural noise level. The results indicated the following:

a) High probability that PLT would cause increased noise levels at sensitive receiver sites given the projected market penetration; and

b) The percentages are highly influenced by assumptions on transmitter EIRP, PLT market penetration, and duty cycle.

The percentage of parameter combinations was also computed where the estimated PLT noise level is above the Absolute Protection Requirement. Again, the probability of the cumulative effect of PLT exceeding the Absolute Protection Requirement is predicted to be relatively large for all frequencies and receiver locations investigated.

Currently, there are no commonly accepted regulatory emission limits for PLT. While it is highly desirable that the regulatory limits on PLT emissions be harmonized throughout the NATO countries, the RTG recognizes that NATO, by itself, has no regulatory authority over the emission limits. Therefore, it is recommended that NATO seek the implementation of this goal by working together with the national and international regulatory authorities."

The complete NATO report sheds additional detailed information on this matter and should be of interest to those concerned with "spectrum pollution" matters.

Please pass along the link to this report to others who may not be aware of the potential disruptive and destructive impact of BPL technology on the RF spectrum.

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)

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