Subject: [NEXTEL-1] P & F On Spectrum The Policy Task Force

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:01:47 -0400

On November 15, the Federal Communications Commission’s Spectrum Policy Task Force
presented its recommendations for modernizing the rules governing allocation and
management of the nation’s electromagnetic spectrum. The Chief of the Office of
Engineering and Technology and a group of industry representatives shared their
initial reactions to the Report with an audience of Federal Communications Bar
Association members at a CLE seminar December 4. The long-awaited report drew
immediate praise and fire.  Although the Report is neither a Notice of Inquiry, a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, nor an Order, its importance could hardly be
overstated. FCC Chairman Michael Powell had declared that spectrum policy was
among the top priorities of his Commission, and the Task Force’s rapid creation
and deployment left little doubt as to its significance in the creation of that
policy.

More than 200 entities responded to the Commission’s Public Notice soliciting
input for the Task Force Report, and the proceeding’s public fora were closely
watched. As had been expected, the Task Force found that significant changes in
the Commission’s approach to spectrum allocation and occupation were in order.
“[T]he time is ripe for spectrum policy reform,” the Task Force declared, adding
that “Increasing demand for spectrum-based services and devices are straining
longstanding, and outmoded, spectrum policies.
”
The Key Findings

The Task Force announced three key findings in its Report:
Access. The Task Force disavowed the oncefundamental
notion that spectrum is an inherently
“scarce” resource. Some spectrum bands
are heavily used, but few are in use in all geographic
areas or are used all of the time, the
TF observed. Thus, there may be opportunities
for spectrum-based services or devices to
operate in the resulting “white spaces”--including
both those that result from variability in
the operations of existing spectrum users over
time and those that result from the geographic separation of existing spectrum
users.
Technology. While technological advances are contributing to the increased
diversity of spectrum-based consumer applications and greater consumer demand for
spectrum-based services, technological advances such as the increased use of
digital technologies and the development of software-defined radios are providing
some potential answers to current spectrum policy challenges. These technological
advances enable spectrum rights to be parceled as a function of time, not just
frequency and geographic area. Also, they allow systems to be much more tolerant
of interference than in the past.

Rights and Responsibilities. Spectrum rights and responsibilities are not always
clearly defined-- users need more certainty. In addition, the rights and
responsibilities that are defined need to better reflect more market-based models
and policies.
Carrying the Technological Message

Ed Thomas, Chief of the Commission’s Office of Engineering and Technology,
declared that “The intention of the Report is to start a public dialogue,” and
said that he expected the crafting of final regulatory policies to be a deliberate
process. It is clear, however, that both government and industry anticipate
unusually rapid and focused action.
Thomas’ first focus was on the technological aspects of spectrum allocation. The
key sub-element, he said, was the deployment of cognitive radios capable of
jumping between frequencies and adjusting their power. The traditional notion of
spectrum scarcity would yield, Thomas predicted, to a radio device that “can know
where it is, adjust its frequency and power, and look before it leaps.”

Spectral agility is augmented, Thomas observed,
by the increasing interference resistance of newer radio
devices. A system that depends on high flexibility
needs to include mechanisms for encouraging the de-
ployment of the highest available technology. The Commission and the public would
have to work together on crafting an innovation-friendly regulatory regime.

Interference Temperature

To make the best use of spectrum-flexible technology, the Task Force recommended
adoption of quantitative standards to provide interference protection.
“Specifically, the Task Force recommends that, on a going forward basis, the
Commission adopt a new metric--the ‘interference temperature’--to quantify and
manage interference. The Commission could use the interference temperature metric
to establish maximum permissible levels of interference on a band-by-band basis,
thus placing a limit on the noise environment in which receivers would be required
to operate. To the extent, however, that the interference temperature in a
particular band is not reached, users who emit energy below that temperature could
operate more flexibly-- with the interference temperature serving as the maximum
cap on the potential RF energy they could introduce into the band.”
For spectrum incumbents, the application of the interference temperature approach
would result in the creation of intra-band “noise floors” variable according to
the number of participants, the critical nature of the services involved, and the
time of day.
Industry Response

Defining the standard of “acceptable interference” is fertile ground for
agency/industry controversy.  Agreeing in principle with the Task Force’s
approach, Intel’s Peter Pitsch, Cingular’s Brian Fontes, and TRW’s Peter Hadinger
presented an industry perspective reflecting equal measures of cooperation and
suspicion.  Fontes fired the first salvo. “Before anything concrete happens, the
need for staff-level education at the Commission is enormous,” he declared. As
examples of a perceived lack of understanding of the industry’s ways and means, he
cited the staff’s previous ventures in mandating E911 implementation and local
number portability.

In the near term, Fontes was concerned about a perceived lack of understanding of
the market ramifications of wireless service degradation that will necessarily
follow any increase in permissible interference levels. Moreover, he said, the
Commission’s track record on “predicting interleaving outcomes” was not good. How
we will deal with mistakes in the intensely competitive, expensive wireless
environment is a prime issue, he noted.

Summarizing the problem to be addressed, he said, “Setting a noise floor is a
moving target requiring huge resources. As you try to implement public policy on
spectrum management, you impinge on public policy on quality of service. Who pays?
Who loses?” Thomas assured him that the Commission was trying to avoid shifting
cost burdens to incumbents “merely to open up some spectrum for a new use.”
Hadinger, speaking for the satellite community, echoed Fontes’ cautious praise.
“Having a transmitter 22,000 miles away makes one interference-sensitive,” he
observed dryly, and voiced concern at the lack of capacity for feedback to an
interfering cognitive device.  Thomas disagreed strongly: “If a property-rights
spectrum licensee is fixed, it can be located and screened,” he said.

Ownership Model

The debate over interference temperature and noise floors is highly colored by the
issue of spectrum ownership.  The Task Force reserved its strongest condemnation
of the historical system for the traditional application of a “command and
control” ownership structure.  With certain limited exceptions, this must go, the
Report declared.
The Commission summarized the ownership recommendation this way:

“The Task Force recommends that the
Commission base its spectrum policy on a
balance of three spectrum rights models: an
exclusive use approach, a commons approach
and, to a more limited degree, a command-andcontrol
approach. While the command-andcontrol
model currently dominates today’s
policy, the Task Force recommends altering the
balance to provide greater use of both the
exclusive use and commons models throughout
the radio spectrum and limiting the use of the
command-and-control model to those instances
where there are compelling public policy
reasons, such as some public safety
applications.

To the extent feasible, more spectrum should be identified for both licensed and
unlicensed uses under flexible rules and existing spectrum that is subject to more
restrictive command-and-control regulation should over time be transitioned to
these models.”

Intel’s Peter Pitsch agreed wholeheartedly. The problem with the traditional model
is “artificial scarcity and the cumbersome command-and-control ownership model,”
he opined. But he added a cautionary note: whatever its defects, the command and
control model had created a large class of incumbents with hard-won, expensive
spectrum rights. “How do you define and limit the flexibility now attaching to
preexisting property rights” he asked.

Pitsch cited two FCC “success stories” to illuminate the debate. He first
applauded the recent introduction of spread spectrum technology as a model for
unleashing the power of equipment using unlicensed spectrum. Second, on the
assigned (exclusive) spectrum side, he noted the dramatic improvement in policy
and implementation of the PCS rules, comparing them to the much less effective
introduction of the cellular regime.

Public Safety: Entrenched and Growing

The Task Force Report enumerated the public safety sector as one of those that
will continue in a “command and control” regulatory mode (along with spectrum
grants subject to international agreements).  Moreover, the Task Force recommended
that additional public safety spectrum be made available in emergencies, through
“safety valve” mechanisms. And even more spectrum should be made available, the
Task Force declared, in true national emergency situations, through enhanced
“easement rights” to the spectrum of other licensees.

Thomas conceded that in the post-9/11 environment, the public safety sector would
continue to own a spectrum property right that is largely unused except in
emergencies. In order to improve the efficiency of this spectrum’s use, the Task
Force recommended that public safety licensees be authorized to lease their excess
spectrum to commercial users subject to a “takeback” mechanism. Chief Thomas also
suggested the larger scale introduction of cognitive radios with preemptive
capability.

The Public Safety issue is particularly sensitive, combining the specter of mass
devastation, the memory of the heartbreaking circuit overloads of September 11,
and the sector’s unwillingness or inability to move beyond its hidebound, old-tech
approach. “The problems are many,” Thomas said; “money, compatibility, long
transition times.”

Cingular’s Fontes vented some frustration at the difficulty of bringing public
safety spectrum into the mainstream. Noting that his company and others like it
had spent considerable effort trying to convince public safety licensees to lease
their idle spectrum, Fontes concluded, “It appears that the FCC has bent over
backwards to encourage spectral inefficiency in the public safety area. What will
it take to remove the command and control model here?”

Turning for a moment to the sizable spectrum reserves of the Department of
Defense, Pitsch and Hadinger reminded the audience (and presumably the OET Chief)
that military users in European nations were required by their governments to
obtain spectrum like anyone else, by paying for it. “There is no better way to
place the correct value on the Department’s spectrum,” they declared.

What’s Next?

As the participants agreed, the Report is the beginning of a long path to a new
regulatory regime.  What will follow, and when, is a subject of intense interest
to regulators and industry.

For openers, Thomas promised a Notice of Inquiry to be announced at the
Commission’s December 11 meeting [see story, page 8]. The subject: operation of
cognitive radio devices in the TV band. Additional NOIs will follow as the new
year progresses, one on interference temperature and noise floors, another on
receiver standards.

Intel’s Pitsch was somewhat discouraged by this approach. Hungry for movement, the
FCC veteran declared that “Notices of Inquiry are useless. Notices of Proposed
Rulemaking, with their concrete proposals, make things happen.” All the industry
representatives expressed the concern that a slow-moving policy process would
confuse the conduct, and muddy the outcome, of upcoming auctions.

Fontes offered an admirable summation of the matter. Applauding the Task Force’s
effort and commending the Commission’s innovative bent, he called for more. “It is
essential that the spectrum debate not be engineer-centric,” he said, with a
glance at Thomas.  Fontes called for recognition and inclusion of the views of the
forces of capital, infrastructure, regulation, and competition. “We need to back
away from costly mandates. We need to make spectrum more accessible.”

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/