FCC could do more to examine whether or not there is effective competition in the wireless industry. By collecting and analyzing more detailed data on industry inputs and outputs that reflect industry dynamics, FCC could better assess competition conditions throughout the industry. Specifically, FCC could collect more detailed data on such issues as prices, special access rates, and capital expenditures and include analysis of that information in its annual report. These metrics help measure the competitiveness of small and regional carriers, can shed light on the impact of switching costs for consumers, and are, therefore, relevant to monitoring competition in the industry. Despite challenges and costs in gathering these data, such information could help FCC better fulfill statutory reporting requirements. With consumers increasing reliance on wireless services as their primary telephone and Internet connection, more is needed to ensure that FCC and the Congress have sufficient information to make policy decisions concerning the wireless industry.

According to many national wireless carriers, tower companies, and other stakeholders with whom we spoke, the most common barrier to building out a wireless network is local zoning policies and procedures which can delay or otherwise hinder the physical construction and improvement of wireless networks. Wireless carriers must generally obtain state and local zoning approvals before building wireless towers or attaching equipment (co-location) to preexisting structures. Although these zoning processes do not always pose a challenge to wireless carriers and tower companies, in some instances they can encumber buildout by denying zoning permits or by making the process for constructing cellular towers and antennas cost prohibitive. Many stakeholders with whom we spoke said that in California, for example, there continues to be significant public concern over the aesthetic and health impacts of wireless infrastructure. As a result, locating wireless facilities can be challenging in cities such as San Diego and San Francisco. Other stakeholders told us that, as wireless networks have expanded into residential areas, residents have raised concerns about aesthetics and safety, making it difficult to provide the capacity necessary to serve the growing demand for wireless services. Washington, D.C., and other cities with unique or historic buildings and skylines can also impose limitations on network build out, such as height restrictions on towers.

Local governments and wireless entities have generally been able to reach agreements on the conditions of wireless network construction, despite the challenges noted above. Some local jurisdictions have developed ordinances specifically for wireless infrastructure in order to make their preferences and requirements clear to carriers and tower companies. Carriers have also developed and adopted a variety of disguising or “stealthing” technologies that help mask towers and other infrastructure. Figure 14 shows a stealth tower in Eureka, California, where the antennas were hidden inside a bell tower on church grounds. In San Francisco, to avoid aesthetic concerns and procedural challenges, wireless carriers have developed Distributed Antenna Systems in recent years. Instead of using large towers or antennas on buildings, these systems involve a series of small antennas, deployed low to the ground, often on utility poles, that together provide wireless coverage.

Telecom and techie bloggers would normally have little to do during August when both FCC and Congress basically go on vacation. But fortunately NAB and RIAA have taken this normally dull news period and made it exciting with their proposal to require all cell phones -- and possibly other types of personal electronics -- to include what you have always been yearning for: an FM receiver! We bloggers are very grateful to NAB and RIAA for their help at this normally quiet period.

The picture at top is from the CBS News website where a CNET commentator really cuts into the proposal predicting that once Steve Jobs hears about it, he will just kill it since he is Master of the Universe. (Does CBS risk being kicked out of NAB for hosting such heresy?)

In memory of the late Fairness Doctrine, here as a link to the Radio Business Report/Television Business Report “Voice of the Broadcasting Industry” website which has a more rational discussion of the topic than NAB who declared the wireless industry’s letter to Congress to be “anti-radio”. (Fortunately, this blog has never been labeled with that dread description.)

However, RBR comes up with a surprising piece of legal research: “Remember also, the Communications Act of 1934 enables the FCC without Congressional intervention to set all of the technical standards for radio receivers, let alone two-way radio receivers -- a.k.a. cell phones.” Even NAB’s well respected legal staff was not able to come to this conclusion simply because there is no such provision in current legislation! (We will gladly print any input arguing otherwise)

But, the other side makes much more interesting reading:

Digital Tends: Will Uncle Sam Shove an FM Radio in Your Cell Phone
AppleInsider: NAB, RIAA seek to push FM radio into iPods and iPhones
Public Knowledge: Despite the RIAA/NAB Unholy Alliance to Force FM Radios Into All Cell Phones, Performance Royalties Are Still a Good Idea
ExtraTorrent: RIAA Demands Cell Phone Makers to Install FM Tuner
Daily Tech: RIAA and Broadcasters Look to Tell U.S. Government to Mandate Radios in Cell Phones

”Whether it's suing dead people or simply suing living ones for millions of dollars for illegally downloading a few tracks, media watchdog the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) seems to gravitate towards controversy like a moth to a flame. The divisive organization is back at it again, this time demanding that the U.S. government impose a drastic mandate on cell phone production.”

(from the rearranging-deck-chairs dept)
We've discussed, for quite some time now, the ridiculousness of a performance rights tax on radio. This is the attempt, by the record labels, to get radio stations to pay performers for advertising and promoting their music. This is clearly not needed, because in the real world, without this, record labels already know that radio play is valuable: it's why they keep running payola scams. For them to try to then legally mandate that money should flow in the opposite direction is downright ridiculous. In what world does the government make someone pay to promote someone else?

After years and years fighting this, we should have known that the NAB would come up with some ridiculous idea in the end. The NAB, which represents broadcasters, is almost always on the wrong side of policy debates (that's what happens when your job is to protect a dying industry), but on this one issue we agreed... until now. Rumors are circulating that the NAB is willing to cave on performance rights, if the RIAA, in exchange, supports a totally wasteful plan to require FM radio receivers be placed in mobile phones, MP3 players and other digital devices. Now, everyone involved says no deal is done yet, but there are multiple indications that this is exactly where the conversation is heading.

National Association of Broadcasters executive vice president Dennis Wharton blasts critics for using usual “Washington-style tactics” that are “long on exaggeration, rhetoric and factual inaccuracies,” and cites evidence of a growing radio audience as proof that “cell phone subscribers deserve access to radio’s free service.” Says opposition is a “simple case of anti-competitive behavior.” ...

I think he’s trying to paint critics with the Washington tag in order to make them seem outside the mainstream, but I think it’s safe to say that most critics are average folks leery about govt mandating design requirements instead of the likes of tech companies like Apple or Motorola. If consumers really wanted an FM tuner they’d seek out those handsets that have them.

Bang out Morse code distress messages from your Sprint EVO MC

So on today, the 6 month anniversary of our enforcement complaint being on the circulation list, we will not complain about that. But we ask what is served by having these other matters pending for such a long period. Note that this date shown below is only the date that the agenda item reached the 8th Floor. Each issue probably was pending for a long time before it ever got to that high level.

"We think that from a public safety perspective, it is critically important to have broadcast radio’s unparalleled lifeline service available instantaneously in times of emergency. For that reason, NAB would oppose any legislation related to royalties that did not include that feature.”

On background, a few things to keep in mind:
-- Radio is a reliable, free and local lifeline service in times of crisis, and in a society where cell phones and other mobile devices are increasingly ubiquitous, it makes sense to have radio-enabled chips in these devices from a public safety perspective; Not to get too dramatic about this, but there were photos that I wish I’d saved from the NY Times on 9/11 of people huddled around car radios and boomboxes to get the latest information;

-- When mass-produced, this feature would cost pennies per cellphone;

-- Many cellphones already have radio capability. They have just not been activated yet by the manufacturer;

-- “Tagging” of music is a feature that many consumers would enjoy, possible providing a new revenue stream to cellphone providers, record labels and radio stations;

-- Putting an FM chip in a cellphone frees up network capacity for the cellphone provider that was previously employed by the consumer for streaming audio features like Pandora and iHeartRadio.You might also be interested in the attached letter, sent last November, by 60 U.S. House representatives from both sides of the aisle to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. The letter advocates that FM radio capability be added to all mobile phones sold in the United States, citing safety and emergency warning alert concerns. (See attached)

From a public safety perspective, it is critically important to have broadcast radio's unparalleled lifeline service available instantaneously in times of emergency. For that reason, NAB would oppose any legislation related to royalties that did not include that feature.

Somehow, the broadcasters did not think to make such a request earlier, even though an entire generation of Americans has grown up thinking "phone" means "mobile phone." So either the NAB has only recently begun to put a higher value on human life, or it thinks spending other people's money--that of phone manufacturers, the carriers who sell their products and their customers--will sell this proposal to its members.

“As you may be aware, on April 9, 2008, the Commission released its First Report and Order adopting technologically neutral rules for the CMAS. In that Order, the Commission considered the comments filed by supporters of FM-based emergency alert technologies, and ultimately concluded that it would "not require or prohibit the use of ALERT-FM ... or similar systems as the basis of the CMAS." CMAS participants, then, are free to adopt FM-based technologies as they desire.”

NAB Statement on CTIA's Anti-Radio Letter to Lawmakers

The National Association of Broadcasters issued a statement today in response to a letter sent by several wireless industry representatives to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. The groups expressed their opposition to the adoption of a radio receiver in cell phones.

Commenting on the letter, NAB Executive Vice President of Communications Dennis Wharton issued the following statement:

"Countries around the globe have added radio-enabled cell phones that are increasingly popular with consumers. The reality is that 239 million Americans tune in to free and local radio every week, and seven million new radio listeners were added just last year.

"Day in and day out, local radio stations serve as a reliable lifeline in times of crisis and weather emergencies. In an increasingly mobile society, it would be unfortunate if telco gatekeepers blocked access to public safety information offered by free and local radio."

The National Association of Broadcasters issued a statement today in response to a letter sent by several wireless industry representatives to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. The groups expressed their opposition to the adoption of a radio receiver in cell phones.

Commenting on the letter, NAB Executive Vice President of Communications Dennis Wharton issued the following statement:

"Countries around the globe have added radio-enabled cell phones that are increasingly popular with consumers. The reality is that 239 million Americans tune in to free and local radio every week, and seven million new radio listeners were added just last year.

"Day in and day out, local radio stations serve as a reliable lifeline in times of crisis and weather emergencies. In an increasingly mobile society, it would be unfortunate if telco gatekeepers blocked access to public safety information offered by free and local radio."

There’s an absolutely ridiculous story making the rounds—apparently the NAB and the RIAA have come to an agreement whereby the NAB will support broadcasters paying performance royalties, in exchange for the RIAA supporting a legal requirement that cell phones, mp3 players, and the like have FM receivers built in.

This idea is so bad that it practically debunks itself—see discussion here, here, and here—but it should suffice to say that it would probably be cheaper to buy every man, woman and child in these United States a portable transistor radio, than to wastefully redesign every high-tech gadget so that it supports an obsolete technology nobody wants. Better yet, let’s auction off the FM spectrum and use the proceeds to buy everyone a pony. ...

The NAB isn’t exactly known for its consistent policy positions (see, for example, its fierce opposition to the XM/Sirius merger (non-NAB members, coincidentally), and its support for every other media merger ever), but blackmailing the RIAA into supporting such a laughably stupid idea as requiring that cell phones include FM tuners is a new low.

Music labels and radio broadcasters can't agree on much, including whether radio should be forced to turn over hundreds of millions of dollars a year to pay for the music it plays. But the two sides can agree on this: Congress should mandate that FM radio receivers be built into cell phones, PDAs, and other portable electronics.

The Consumer Electronics Association, whose members build the devices that would be affected by such a directive, is incandescent with rage. "The backroom scheme of the [National Association of Broadcasters] and RIAA to have Congress mandate broadcast radios in portable devices, including mobile phones, is the height of absurdity," thundered CEA president Gary Shapiro. Such a move is "not in our national interest."

“Rather than adapt to the digital marketplace, NAB and RIAA act like buggy-whip industries that refuse to innovate and seek to impose penalties on those that do.”

“ requiring devices capable of receiving SDARS to include digital audio broadcast (“DAB”), or HD RadioT, or any other technologies capable of providing audio entertainment services; and requiring devices capable of receiving HD Radio to include SDARS or any other technologies capable of providing audio entertainment services.”

Currently, only songwriters are paid performance royalties for music played by over the air radio stations, although satellite and Internet radio stations are required to pay performance fees to the artists and labels as well.

Negotiations between the two trade groups have found agreement on a plan that requires radio stations to pay new, limited performance rights fees to the studios annually, but that plan is tied to the ability of the two groups to pass laws forcing mobile device makers to add FM radio features to their devices.

There has been a bitter war between the armies of music and radio. The taxes that the Recording Industry Army of America (RIAA) demand of radio duchies across the country remains a contentious enough issue to have the National Army of Broadcasters (NAB) strike at them at every opportunity, and neither side has been willing to give in to the argument fully. With their plans for inward expansion on each others' small kingdoms at a standstill, they look outward and see vast amounts of territory around them, territory they once knew and loved but now filled with the unclean and ignorant masses that were once called "potential listeners."

“The spectrum survey measurements contained in this report cannot be used solely to assess the feasibility of using alternate services or systems in a band. Extrapolation of data in this report to general spectrum occupancy for alternative spectrum uses requires consideration of additional factors.”

The above measurement by Shared Spectrum Corp. in New York City during the 2004 Republican National Convention shows the minimal use of this band even during a time of nearly unprecedented federal law enforcement and military presence in the city. FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force measurements showed similar results except in San Diego - the only major city with a military airfield near the center. (See Report of the Spectrum Efficiency Working Group, p. 10. The plot is labeled ‘ Occupancy of approximately 700 megahertz of spectrum below 1 GHz”, but actually is 200-900 MHz so the 225-400 MHz band is the left quarter of the horizontal axis. The report comments “it can be seen that there can be a large variation in spectrum use intensity within the spectrum below 1 GHz”.)

DoD’s concerns over measurement of this band are several.

• The low occupancy might lead naive policy makers to reallocate the band to other uses while the situation is more complicated. The band is heavily used in some rural areas for training and could be heavily used in emergencies even in urban areas. Thus they would argue that fire departments should not have the same spectrum loading as taxis since they have vital peak demands during emergencies. BUT, why hide the data and why not consider possible new spectrum use models based in “interruptible spectrum” concepts where DoD could preempt commercial use of the spectrum on a moment’s notice?

• Measurement of the band’s occupancy might reveal critical security information. Did the Shared Spectrum data above reveal such information? The Russians already have diplomatic facilities in New York, San Francisco, Seattle and Houston. The Chinese have them New York, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Thus key countries that have tensions with the US can readily measure for themselves the rough information given in spectrum occupancy studies. Withholding it from US policy makers and elected officials would not appear to be a valid security measure. There is no need to show which frequency channels are used vs. unused, a histogram of channel occupancies would be adequate for policy purposes. It is hard to believe that any channel occupancy data in this band reveals properly classified information.

• The US military has to negotiate for access to this band in other countries where we have bases and showing any “softness” in this band with respect to civil use might send the wrong signal to host countries. Probably. But spectrum is now a major input factor into GDP growth and making life easy for Politico-Military Affairs officers in US embassies overseas probably should not be a dominant factor in domestic spectrum decisions. New technologies could allow sharing of this band with preemption as discussed above and DoD and State department can explain to our allies how the new technology allows new options that they might wish to consider also.

Photo from CIA Headquarters

UPDATE


See http://www.marcus-spectrum.com/Blog/files/SpecMeasCorr414.html

“(N)ew technologies have the potential to free up spectrum from many of its existing uses. In combination with regulatory changes, new and emerging technologies can facilitate the repackaging, reallocation, and even sharing of spectrum. Reallocating spectrum to its most valuable use promises to be a win-win effort – creating value that not only spurs new innovations and creates new jobs, but also benefits existing spectrum users by allowing them to raise funds for transformative new investments.

“The viability of spectrum access for new radio services often centers on whether the new service may cause harmful interference to incumbent services. This can lead to delays through protracted rule making proceedings that can create uncertainty and discourage investment. Are there ways the Commission can improve upon this process?” (para. 34)

•There is widespread consensus on the mechanisms and dangers of creating interference when licensing services that employ different duplexing technologies in adjacent spectrum.

•Industry stakeholders recently demonstrated the risks associated with plans to permit TDD operations in AWS-3 spectrum, without adequate allowances to protect adjacent AWS-1 FDD operations. (emphasis added)

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is contemplating a major increase in funding in spectrum access research in conjunction with the presidential initiatives in this area. I just attended a 3 day workshop at NSF headquarters that considered possible directions for such a program. The presence of Commerce Secretary Locke and FCC Commissioner Baker at this meeting shows high level interest in the activity.

I will link here to the conclusions of the workshop when they are finished and published. Meanwhile, I will give my suggestions, many of which “got traction” at the workshop, in the hope that they might interest other researchers.

=====

Here's a list of research areas I have been working on for a while. You may wish to consider some at the conference. These are based on my experience at FCC and I have no vested interest in any of them other than intellectual curiosity.

1. Combining niche wireless applications into more general systems to improve spectrum efficiency. Today’s internet carries a wide variety of information flows while wireless systems are more narrow, leading to parallel “silo”-like allocations. Can we integrate wireless microphones, weather balloons, and other applications intermittent in time and space into broader systems.

2.Rethinking design of RF illumination of suburbia. (neé cellular base station design) in order to provide 10-20 wireless services from towers spaced on about 0.5-1.0 mile grid and keeping visual design compatible to suburbia. In reality, local opposition to cell tower construction is a major factor that slows wireless availability. Should include the impact of pfd regulation vice present eirp regulation as the higher frequencies now used for mobile services permit CSC2 antenna designs on. Excessive fs near present base stations limits spectrum efficiency with realistic receivers.

3. Radar systems occupy a large amount of spectrum and sharing with incumbent systems is very difficult. Simultaneous design of radar systems and communications systems so that they can share the same spectrum based on highly directional nature of radar emissions. Enable intermittent packetized communications access to radar spectrum and determine what backlobe requirements would be needed for radar to share on a win-win basis.

4. Filters and spectrum efficiency: Filters, in both transmitters and receivers, have a major impact on spectrum efficiency, yet are rarely discussed. There is no “Moore's law” like formulation of how filters for transmitters and receivers have improved over the decades. Yet they have. We need both a Formulate a figure of merit for filters (Q is a good start, but too simple) and a clear theory on how filter improvement translates into spectrum efficiency.

5. Cognitive radio concepts to select freq to protect receivers with limited dynamic range and adjacent channel rejection. This will significantly reduce receiver cost and allow greater spectrum use in real world.

6. Propagation and cognitive radio: Classic propagation models focus on single paths, yet sensing-based cognitive radios have multiple correlated. Better understanding of loss uncertainty and these correlations will allow us to predict CR performance better without expensive field tests for each system. Determine how existing propagation models need to be expanded for CR performance prediction and specify a measurement program to develop needed data.

“Five years after creating a free interactive program - Focus on Driving - to educate teenagers on the dangers of driver distraction, Sprint (NYSE:S) is expanding its mission to support two nationwide programs that educate teenagers and adults of all ages on the importance of safe driving in today's wireless world.”

“Each year, thousands of families suffer the loss of loved ones needlessly at the hands of drivers distracted by their cell phones. Whether texting, using hands-free or handheld phones, these drivers not only put their lives on the line, but they risk killing others on the road.

FocusDriven provides victims of cell phone distracted drivers, and their friends and families, with an outlet for sharing their stories. We also provide those interested in this issue with opportunities to get involved.

FocusDriven can help you petition your state legislation; educate your friends, families and coworkers about the hazards of distracted driving; or share your story with state representatives to help support legislation for safer roadways.”

FocusDriven supporters and advocates know, and many have experienced, the very real consequences of drivers distracted by their cell phones. We ask you to make the pledge to not drive distracted, share what you learn on our site with those you know and get involved to help make our nation’s roads safer.

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020397659
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020397641
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020397663
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020397644
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020397654
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020397638

Is there at the very least a “by your leave” apology for these late filings, perhaps blaming a dog for eating some paper? Not that we can find so far.

Here are some other late MSTV filings within the past year:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020352105
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020352104
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020352103
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020036571
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020036570
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020036569
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020036568

[Note that some of these filings may be duplicates filed repeatedly. However, I do not believe that FCC Rules permits multiple late filings of the same document as a remedy for lateness. Indeed, multiple filings of the same document complicates the work of both the Commission and other parties unless they contain a correction of a previous error or omission. It is customary in FCC practice to state that is a filing is a correction of a previous filing. None of the above filings give any indication that they are corrections]

Thus out of 101 ex parte filings in the past year, a few joint with the letter perfect NAB, MSTV, the subject of a longstanding ex parte complaint, was apparently late on 13 -- even while their previous performance was under review at FCC. But since MSTV has never received as much as a warning note from the Commission staff on previous apparent violations, they probably have logically assumed that they are exempt from compliance. It is the clear Pavlovian conclusion from FCC behavior.

Thus it is interesting to read a 7/16/10 comment, actually a late filed comment, from the FCBA Access to Government Committee that says,

While the FCC should enforce its rules, including the ex parte rules, there is no demonstrated need for increased sanctions or a dedicated effort to enhanced enforcement. The FCC should be able to continue to address any violations within its existing remedies.

For instance, the NPRM asks for comment on requiring staff filings following ex parte presentations. In our experience, this would be burdensome to staff and would provide a disincentive for staff members to meet with the public. While staff members should be free to submit an ex parte notice, they should not be required to do so.