[CWN-Summit] Spectrum updates

[Harold Feld]

(My apologies for any duplicates people see as a result of cross-posting)

Important doings at the FCC and the Hill this summer.

FIRST, a relatively minor thing but with significant applications.  The FCC 
Enforcement Bureau has declared the use, sale, or marketing of cellular 
jammers illegal.  These devices are manufactured and marketed in other 
countries, but are not made in the U.S.  In addition to invoking the 
requirement that such devices must receive Commission certification under 
Sec. 302A, the Commission invoked Sec. 333 which prohibits interference 
with any signal licensed or otherwise authorized by the Commission.  A copy 
of the declaration is available here:
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1776A1.doc>
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1776A1.pdf>
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1776A1.txt>

This has significant implications for what is being referred to as 
"suppression of rogue APs" and also for devices deliberately designed to 
interfere with wireless networks.

SECOND, as some of you may recall, the FCC opened up the 3650-3700 MHz band 
to a new form of "licensed" access.  Although technically licensed and 
therefore under Part 90 rather than Part 15, the "license" is non-exclusive 
and grants no better rights with users based on past use or priority (no 
"first in time, first in right" usual in traditional "licensing-lie" 
schemes).  The rules also require users to use "contention based protocols" 
to share the band.  The rules permit "licensees" to operate fixed base 
stations of up to 25-watts EIRP in power.  Mobile devices may operate on 
the band at a strength of 1-watt, but must receive an enabling command from 
a stationary base station.  The band has geographic carve outs to protect 
incumbent satellite earth receiver stations.  However, because the new 
devices are a licensed secondary service, the FCC has required the 
incumbents to negotiate with those seeking to operate systems in the 
exclusion zones to operate on a non-interfering basis.  The exclusion zones 
effectively eliminate use in the top 25 market areas in the United States.

Other than the incumbent users located along the coasts and in the midwest, 
the band is unused.  The rules prevent an accumulation of "junk" such as in 
2.4 GHz or 5.8 GHGz.  Staff have indicated that they regard this as a test 
case whether developers and those using non-exclusive spectrum for 
broadband can genuinely cooperate.  If this model works, it may be used in 
other areas to create opportunities for non-exclusive use alongside 
exclusive licenses (e.g., broadcasting).

Intel has organized resistance to the new rules from what I will call "the 
WiMax posse."  Approximately ten Petitions for Reconsideration were filed, 
most of which advocate for altering the rules to accommodate WiMax (either 
move to true licensing or eliminate the requirement for contention based 
protocols and create a "first in time, first in right" regime so that the 
first carriers to deploy can set up WiMax networks.

I have received inquiries from some tech companies as to whether the WISPs 
and the community wireless communities will "defend" the 3650-3700 MHz 
band.  The influx of hundreds of comments from WISPs and from community 
network supporters had a huge impact on our defeating the proposal from 
Intel to make this a licensed regime in the first place.  Intel is hard at 
work trying to "recapture" the spectrum, and companies considering 
developing equipment for the band are hesitant to do so unless there is a 
sufficient show of interest from the would-be beneficiaries to give them 
confidence the FCC will keep the rules.

MAP will draft oppositions to the Petitions for Reconsideration.  In 
addition, I would like to urge people to file individual comments in 
opposition to the recon petitions.  For those wishing to file comments, the 
docket number remains the same, 04-151.
Oppositions are due 15 days after the Commission puts the Petitions for 
Reconsideration on public notice in the Federal Register.  Given how fast 
the Fed Reg publication is, we are looking at late July at the earliest for 
Oppositions.  Nothing, however, prevents interested parties from filing at 
any time, as the proceeding is designated "permit but disclose."

In addition to the FCC front, I would be very interested in talking to 
anyone in the open spectrum/open source community about developing open 
source solutions for the 3650-3700 MHz band.  This is a real opportunity 
for open source to get "first mover advantage" in a band.  The IETF 
presents a possible vehicle for a recognized standard that could 
subsequently be adopted by chip set manufacturers.  FCC staff have 
expressed interest in helping open source developers navigate the approval 
process (their certification people are very open and friendly).

THIRD, Congress is considering the digital television 
transition.  Consensus is that this bill represents a "must pass" over the 
objections of the National Association of Broadcasters because they want 
the auction money.  From an unlicensed perspective, however, the DTV 
legislation represents both an opportunity and a threat.  On the 
opportunity side, Congress could either set aside spectrum for unlicensed 
access or order the FCC to set rules to permit unlicensed access in the 
"white spaces."  On the threat side, the NAB is seizing this opportunity to 
get legislative language in prohibiting any unlicensed access in the 
broadcast bands as a danger to the "digital transition."

As members of Congress head home for the July 4 recess, it creates an 
opportunity to educate them about the importance of unlicensed spectrum 
access.  Needless to say, most memebrs of Congress have never even heard of 
"unlicensed spectrum," but education must begin somewhere.  If you can, 
take time to call the in-state office of your Senator or Representative and 
explain that you think the DTV transition should serve ALL Americans by 
getting us all access to spectrum and tell them about the issue.  Even 
better, a fax and a follow up phone call to simply raise the consciousness 
of the possibilities and to make staffers more receptive to the arguments 
of the folks in Washington fighting for unlicensed spectrum will be very 
helpful.

Happy July 4,

Harold