Latest Wireless Absurdity from Congress

Politicians on Thursday (02/19/09) called for a sweeping new federal law that would require all Internet Service Providers (ISP's) and operators of millions of Wi-Fi access points, including hotels, local coffee shops, and private in-home users, to keep records about users who access their networks for two years to aid police investigations. They even have come up with a silly acronym so that the title of the bill - Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's Youth Act - spells out "Internet SAFETY Act."

More on this absurdity here:


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10168114-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1\
_3-0-20


Geeez...and to think we elected some of these folks. What's the matter with us, anyway? Would someone explain to me just how this law will help prevent the "exploitation of today's youth"? IMHO, the promoters of this legislation have either lost track of reality or, are suffering from a high BER. (Actually, it's probably some of both!)


NR

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)

Managing "Open Access", "White Spaces", & Unlicensed Spectrum

There's more than a few issues and challenges open for consideration and debate when it comes to allowing more and more "open access" and license-free use of the radio spectrum as the authors of this 2005 white paper attempt to point out....

"Managing Shared Access to a Spectrum Commons" (Presented at the IEEE DySpan2005 - Baltimore - November 2005 By William Lehr and Jon Crowcroft)

Abstract

The open access, unlicensed or spectrum commons approach to managing shared access to RF spectrum offers many attractive benefits, especially when implemented in conjunction with and as a complement to a regime of market-based, flexible use, tradable licensed spectrum.

However, as a number of critics have pointed out, implementing the unlicensed model poses difficult challenges that have not been well-addressed yet by commons advocates.

A successful spectrum commons will not be unregulated, but it also need not be command & control by another name. This paper seeks to address some of the implementation challenges associated with managing a spectrum commons. We focus on the minimal set of features that we believe a suitable management protocol, etiquette, or framework for a spectrum commons will need to incorporate.

This includes: (1) No transmit only devices; (2) Power restrictions; (3) Common channel signaling; (4) Mechanism for handling congestion and allocating resources among users/uses in times of congestion; (5) Mechanism to support enforcement (e.g., established procedures to verify protocol is in conformance); (6) Mechanism to support reversibility of policy; and (7) Protection for privacy and security.

We explain why each is necessary, examine their implications for current policy, and suggest ways in which they might be implemented. We present a framework that suggests a set of design principles for the protocols that will govern a successful commons management regime. Our design rules lead us to conclude that the appropriate Protocols for a Commons will need to be more liquid than in the past: (1) Market-based instead of C&C; (2) Decentralized/distributed; and, (3) Adaptive and flexible (Anonymous, distributed, decentralized, and locally responsive).


Offered as suggested background reading and insight in light of the big push for these by the TV "white spaces" proponents, the Cognitive Radio/SDR folks, and the Google's, Intel's, and Microsoft's of the new wireless world.


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 Says No to M2Z

The FCC today finally responded to M2Z Networks' application for authorization to build and provide a free national wireless broadband network (as previously reported here) using 2.1 GHz spectrum - their answer was no.

In my view at least, that is a correct decision. Now, before anyone jumps to any conclusions about why I believe it correct, take the time to read the Commissions Order yourself which may provide some insight and background that you were not aware of....then we can debate the matter!

NR

700 MHz, TV "White Space" Spectrum, the FCC and the Future of Wireless Communications

She's done it again! Susan P. Crawford, that is. In her latest working paper, The Radio and The Internet, she presents a broad overview and historical background (with many footnotes to more in-depth details for those with inquiring minds) of how the natural resource known as the RF spectrum has been allocated and managed (or, as many believe, mis-managed) by the FCC over the last several decades.

But, she also has done an excellent job (the best I've seen, at least) of putting into a pretty balanced context most of the unbalanced rhetoric, hype, and political posturing from all sides of the hotly debated 700 MHz auction rules proceeding that we've all just experienced.

She also reminds the regulators of the pressing need for them to be much more decisive than they have been regarding the definition of the "public interest" aspect of 21st century spectrum and technology matters during the on-going TV "White Spaces" debate which, by the way, will most certainly be the subject of the next big spectrum battle. Stay tuned - it's likely to be just as contentious if not more so than the 700 MHz debate was since it involves unlicensed use of the spectrum.

Here's the abstract of the paper, but the actual paper is a much better read and really deserves a few minutes of your time:

Abstract:

The airwaves offer the potential for contributing to enormous
economic growth if they are used more efficiently for facilitating
high-speed internet access, but recent industry and government
actions have failed to follow this path.

This article evaluates the multi-billion-dollar 700 MHz auction
regime established by the Federal Communications Commission
in August 2007 as a case study in our national approach to this
valuable resource, and argues that the public interest would
best be served by having ubiquitous access to the internet be
the top priority of communications policy.

The article criticizes the nearly exclusive focus of the FCC on the
interests of incumbents and law enforcement, and suggests that
spectrum policy be focused on enabling unlicensed uses of the
airwaves that can assist the nation with online access.

Download a copy and decide for yourself.

NR

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

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

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

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

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

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


NR

M2Z Networks to Sue FCC

Startup M2Z Networks is upset that the FCC has yet to take action on a 2006 spectrum application and proposal filed by the company so...... it's going to file a lawsuit against the regulatory agency.

M2Z Networks' proposal is (or maybe was) to offer free ad-supported wireless broadband to 95 percent of the U.S. within 10 years, using 20 MHz of spectrum in the 2 GHz band (2155-2175 MHz). The speed of the free tier — 384 kbps down and 128 kbps up - barely qualifies the service as broadband, but might be acceptable to the average sit-in-the-park-and-surf-the-web wi-fi user who has nothing better to do.

In addition, there would be a 3 Mbps 'premium' service available to paying subscribers. The company proposes to lease the spectrum in exchange for it giving the FCC 5 percent of the gross revenues realized from its premium service. Public Safety entities would also have access to the network at no cost other than for the hardware, if I recall correctly.

However, The Wall Street Journal claims that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has shared a thumbs down opinion on the proposal with the rest of the commissioners. If the WSJ report is accurate, M2Z's legal threat may be pretty much meaningless.

As to the potential for success for this type of free network? Pretty questionable, at least in my opinion; most ad-supported free wi-fi networks have yet to pan out economically and most have discovered - the hard way - the many real-world realities inherent to wireless performance, coverage, and security. Not many have lived up to the promotional hype generated by their proponents nor delivered the user-experience expected. Besides, how much advertising can one take, anyway?


Check out M2Z's web site, then decide for yourself, though.

NR