The Great "White Spaces" Challenge

Google (and its technology partners) are facing the great "white spaces" challenge - the next big spectrum allocation battle - from the politically powerful NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) and others.

On the one hand we have the over-the-air TV broadcasters (who rarely offer much worth the bandwidth it takes to beam it into our living rooms) insisting that the spectrum will "suffer" from the use of unlicensed wi-fi like devices operating near THEIR frequencies.

On the other hand, we have pretty much the rest of the country clamoring - no, make that screaming - for the opportunity to deploy "innovative" wireless communications devices and services, "stimulate" our economy, and make "better use" of nearly the very SAME spectrum - all on an unlicensed basis with little if any regulatory enforcement of that use. (Which, IMHO, is a somewhat worrisome scenario to begin with considering the historical track record over the years of the FCC's ability to "protect" the natural resource we call the RF spectrum, AND, the purported "better use" and "innovation" that the "white spaces" proponents claim they'll make with the resource.)

This spectrum battle should prove VERY interesting to say the least. Let's hope the regulators make the right decision - whatever "right" is deemed to be these days.


NR
(Repost)

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

UPDATE: FCC Boss Under Scrutiny for Management Tactics

FCC Chairman Martin has dutifully responded to House Commerce Committee Chairman Dingell's recent inquiry regarding the management tactics employed by the chief of the nations wireless communications regulatory agency.

For those interested, here is Chairman Martin's 56 page initial reply.


Happy reading.


NR

(Repost)

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

Economics, Politics, Wireless Spectrum....and You

On the same Wavelength
Aug 12th 2004

Most people do not worry much about physics or politics when, for example, they look at the colours of a rainbow. Nor do they pause much when they use a remote control for their TV set, talk on a mobile phone, listen to the radio, cook food in their microwave oven, open their car door from a distance, or surf the internet without wires. Yet these are all phenomena of electromagnetic radiation. How humans harness electromagnetic waves — and specifically those in the radio-frequency part of the spectrum — has become so important that old and new ways of thinking are now lining up for a tense confrontation that will affect numerous businesses and billions of consumers.

Full text:
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3084475

NR