What’s The Big Deal About License-Exempt Spectrum? Just Buy Some Spectrum!

What’s The Big Deal About License-Exempt Spectrum? Just Buy Some Spectrum!
The title of this paragraph sounds laughably simplistic… but that is precisely the regulatory attitude of the FCC towards “service provider” use of license-exempt spectrum. As long as service providers adhere to the technical limitations outlined in the various FCC rules regarding the various license-exempt spectrums (they’re not uniform), the FCC cannot prohibit service providers from making use of license-exempt spectrum. But they certainly don’t have to make it easy… nor do they. While it is sometimes possible to purchase spectrum at auctions for prices approaching reasonable (this has actually happened), it’s relatively rare. It’s especially rare in the aftermath of the Nextwave spectrum auction debacle, where Nextwave’s investors stood to reap a significant multiple of their original investment after “squatting” on a spectrum auction purchase that was re-auctioned. Spectrum speculators routinely buy up “loose” spectrum allocations at auction in the hope that they will be able to lease the spectrum to someone who can use it (for a handsome profit, of course) before “build out” requirements force the spectrum to revert to the FCC if the spectrum is not put to use. For smaller, regional service providers, the cost of obtaining licensed spectrum for use is, for the most part, simply out of reach.

With license-exempt spectrum, the license is for the equipment, not the spectrum. License-exempt equipment is designed and certified, built, and installed to comply with applicable FCC rules. In return for adherence to such rules, the issues of where such equipment is used and how it is used is not restricted (nor is such usage monitored- license-exempt systems are not “registered”, etc.) With the emergence of new generations of BWIA systems, the 5 GHz license-exempt band is proving to be highly useful to BWIA Service Providers, with up to 200 MHz of usable spectrum.

Why does license-exempt work so well? Why doesn’t everyone interfere with everyone else, if there are no rules in place to prevent such interference? I feel such a situation occurs because of what I call “The Darwinian Effect Of License-Exempt Wireless”. Each license-exempt system is required under the various FCC rules for license-exempt operation to “… accept interference, even when such interference causes undesirable operation.” I’m sure that phrase was intended as a routine bit of legalese, but its effect is profound. That phrase insures that no one system, technology, or unit has an absolute right to not be interfered with. So, as the license-exempt spectrums become inevitably more crowded and interference increases, license-exempt equipment must be capable of dealing with such interference or it will cease to operate reliably. If the equipment cannot function in the presence of interference, it will be replaced by equipment that can function in the presence of interference; in essence, survival of the fittest (most functional) systems – technical Darwinism.

A secondary reason why license-exempt systems work so well is that all the equipment is continually getting better than it has to be, for no increase in cost. BWIA system designers have access to a veritable cornucopia of relatively inexpensive new radio-frequency (RF) devices, courtesy of a mobile telephony industry that operates in volumes of tens of billions of units per year. For example, a particular system design may only require the capabilities of a 24-bit Analog to Digital (A/D) Converter, but it turns out that a 32-bit A/D converter is the same price. Using the 32-bit A/D Converter results in a system with a more sensitive receiver (assuming that the additional capability is actually implemented – sometimes it isn’t). Because license-exempt equipment is produced in significantly higher volume that equivalent equipment for licensed spectrum, it is generally cheaper.

Marlon Schafer – Broadband Internet Service To Odessa, Washington And Beyond
Marlon Schafer and his company, Odessa Office Equipment, is a good illustration of how creative entrepreneurs are using license-exempt BWIA equipment to provide broadband services in secondary and rural areas that simply are not being served by wireline service providers. Schafer got his start in the Internet business “by popular demand” in 1996 when the most popular dialup services such as CompuServe and Prodigy required expensive long-distance calls (with slow modems!). That year Schafer began offering dialup Internet service in Odessa (90 miles SW of Spokane, WA) and as the years and his business progressed, he experimented with higher-speed options such as DSL. In Odessa, as in most rural communities, DSL services aren’t available unless “dry pairs” are used with “line driver” modems. Schafer experimented with wireless, but initially found it too costly to consider. When he revisited wireless several years later, he found that prices had declined radically, and was now potentially cost-effective to use wireless to connect to customers. Schafer relates “We have about 80 customers off of 7 towers that cover about 2100 square miles of rural Washington state. Odessa has faster and cheaper connectivity than almost any area in the Seattle area!” Most of Schafer’s customers are farmers (voracious consumers of technology that can make a difference in crop yields) and small businesses. I can vouch for Shafer’s last statement – when I visited him in Odessa in late 2001, DSL was not available to me and cable modem service had just become available… and I live very close to the high-tech Mecca of Redmond, WA. Schafer’s Wireless Internet Access delivers faster throughput for lower cost than what is available near Redmond… and Schafer’s Wireless Internet Access system also provides mobile broadband coverage! Schafer had little technical training, and none on wireless, but is now very much in demand as a consultant and a resource to startup Wireless Internet Service Providers all over the world. Says Schafer “I now do hundreds of emails and hours of phone calls on the average day dealing with wireless issues and equipment sales for other companies. I also do consulting for other companies that are looking to get into the WISP business.” (http://news.com.com/2100-1033-277066.html?legacy=cnet&tag=mn_hd)

Alvarion’s BreezeAccess – Mobile (True) Broadband
Alvarion has supplied its BreezeNET and BreezeACCESS equipment for a number of customers to construct networks of base stations for mobile broadband service using license-exempt spectrum. To the vast majority of observers, the three terms – broadband, mobility, and license-exempt spectrum are completely incompatible. The combination of any two of those terms was completely feasible… but to achieve all three defies conventional wisdom. One of the most impressive such networks was built for the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department to provide mobile broadband services for 650 Sheriff’s Department vehicles. The vehicles are equipped with onboard personal computers for accessing law enforcement databases, writing reports and other administrivia, accessing email, and allowing remote maintenance (such as automatic antivirus updates) without requiring a shop visit. Alvarion’s equipment uses Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS) which transmits a relatively narrow “channel” that continuously “hops” to different parts of the 2.4 GHz band in a pseudo-random pattern.

Aperto Networks PacketWave – The Ten Magic Parameters
Aperto Networks is representative, and one of the most successful, of a number of new BWIA equipment vendors. Aperto’s PacketWave is a classic Point-Multipoint (base stations providing service to individual customers) BWIA system that delivers DSL-class Internet access (500 Kbps – 1 Mbps) to customers. PacketWave’s base station dynamically analyzes the path to each customer, and optimizes a total of ten parameters for each transmission to each customer. Some of the parameters are upper/lower antenna element (spatial diversity), vertical/horizontal polarization, type of modulation, packet size, amount of forward error correction, and several others. The result is a system that outperforms most other BWIA systems for quality of service and “total penetration”. This last quality is because PacketWave can make use of reflections – signals bouncing from buildings, water towers, etc., to enhance coverage. Aperto expected that the majority of interest for PacketWave would be for international versions of PacketWave that operate in the popular (overseas) 3.5 GHz band, and in the US, the 2.5 – 2.7 GHz MMDS/ITFS bands. Aperto wisely “hedged their bet” and also offered a version of PacketWave for license-exempt 5 GHz spectrum, and to date Aperto has mostly that version. In sharp contrast to most other new BWIA equipment vendors, Aperto is actually shipping PacketWave in production quantities.

Nokia Wireless Routers – Mesh Networking
Nokia made a regrettable choice when it chose to acquired Rooftop Communications and decided to rename it to Nokia Wireless Routers. “Rooftop Communications”, the company’s name prior to the Nokia acquisition, conveys pretty well the company’s product. One of the better print advertising campaigns in the BWIA industry is Nokia’s advertisement of a man sitting at the peak of a rooftop holding up a hand-lettered sign saying BANDWIDTH WANTED. At least NWR kept the Rooftop name for the product line. A Rooftop network begins with a “seed” node – a Rooftop node connected to a backhaul Internet connection. Once the seed node (one, or more) is established, a Rooftop network can begin to grow organically, and each node will figure out who its neighbor nodes are, and how to route data back to the seed node most efficiently (and dynamically – routes are automatically recomputed if a node goes offline). A Rooftop network is ideal for providing bandwidth in situations like suburban housing projects that have extensive tree coverage or uneven terrain where only some of the potential customers can see a common, high point that would be necessary for a base station. Rooftop products have been shipping for several years, and Rooftop’s mesh networking algorithms are considerably advanced over newer mesh networking products.

fSONA Communications – Carrier-class Free Space Optical Equipment
In contrast to some other Free Space Optics (FSO) vendor’s equipment, fSONA’s SONAbeam just look like they belong on roofs or towers. fSONA equipment housings are built very strongly- almost overbuilt, but at a glance you have confidence that such units are designed to survive life on a roof or tower. fSONA has gradually been able to convince carriers and service providers that SONAbeam is truly a complement to their fiber deployments. Hopefully they’ll be able to eventually convince some fiber carriers so they can “fight fire, with fire” and then perhaps actually survive by signing up new customers that SONAbeam links make possible. FSO’s primary advantages are that it is inherently license-exempt, immune to interference, offers very high bandwidth, and is much, much cheaper than trying to route fiber in a developed area. SONAbeam is now offered in a number of variants to separately address the carrier market and the rapidly-growing enterprise market.

Harmonix GigaLink – RF That Behaves Like Optical
Harmonix is one of the very few companies that make equipment, at least “terrestrial” equipment (this spectrum is used for inter-satellite communications because there are no oxygen molecules in Earth orbit and such transmissions can’t be intercepted from the earth’s surface because of the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere) for the relatively new license-exempt 57-64 GHz band. The reason that this spectrum is license-exempt is that it is severely attenuated by oxygen molecules in the air. Even with high-gain antennas, range is approximately one mile, allowing extensive reuse of this spectrum. With so much spectrum (7 GHz) available, “high order” modulation techniques such as QAM-64 aren’t needed to achieve high throughput speeds and so simple, inexpensive modulation techniques are used.

Digital Atlantic Scintillion – Cascading Line Of Sight
Digital Atlantic (DA) is yet another Broadband Wireless startup with a new idea. As innovative as DA’s technology is, I find far more inspiration in Digital Atlantic’s timing. DA is trying to establish itself as a company and develop its product in the midst of what can most realistically be described as a full-scale depression in the telecommunications industry. But, innovative new companies like DA continue to emerge, giving the rest of us hope that reasonably-priced, reasonable-performance broadband service is not a completely forlorn hope.

Digital Atlantic’s Scintillion node is a small unit approximately the size of a soda can and is designed to be mounted on a telephone or electrical pole. In a Scintillion node is an inexpensive Free Space Optics (FSO) module capable of transmitting 1 Gbps of bandwidth over a distance of 250 feet. Nodes can switch packets from node to node in (it is claimed) in microseconds or faster resulting in near-zero latency. Scintillion nodes are powered by a small solar panel or optionally by a small fuel cell that requires replenishment only once per year. To connect between a Scintillion node and a customer, “commodity” Radio Frequency (RF) wireless systems are used. In 2002, likely 802.11b will be used; in 2003 – 802.11a or 802.11g, or perhaps Ultra Wideband (UWB). DA’s two design goals for Scintillion is that the nodes be fast and inexpensive.

If DA’s performance and cost goals for Scintillion are realized, it would seem entirely possible to use Scintillion nodes to build a new, cost-effective, high-performance broadband infrastructure in small to medium-sized cities for a cost that could easily be covered by modest economic development grants.

Allegany County Maryland – Taking Broadband Service Into Their Own Hands
In an amusing telecommunications industry equivalent of “Man Bites Dog”, tiny Allegany County, Maryland has decided to expand a modest point-to-point microwave network into a broadband communications network called Allconet that would provide broadband services to all county residents, businesses, and government offices. It decided to do so after years of appeals to Verizon (formerly Bell Atlantic) to begin providing broadband services to Allegany County residents and businesses had gone unanswered. Instead of using wireline circuits to transport bandwidth around the county (estimated cost $180M), Allegany County will use a combination of wireless technologies – licensed point-to-point microwave, licensed point-to-multipoint microwave, and license-exempt point-to-multipoint (last mile). The estimated cost for the wireless-based network is $2.9M – $5M. Best of all, there will be no recurring fees paid to Verizon (except for the relatively modest cost of Internet backbone bandwidth, possibly provided by another service provider.) In an amusing, ironic twist, Verizon has been quoted that public-sector networks such as Allconet could eventually “undermine Verizon’s incentive to provide such services”. It’s decidedly unsettling to Verizon that county governments, even tiny ones, can build their own broadband networks with the use of relatively inexpensive BWIA technologies. Verizon is in for more discomfort – Allconet is such a successful model that numerous county and municipal governments have contacted Allegany County for advice on how to set up their own Broadband Wireless networks.
(http://industryclick.com/magazinearticle.asp?releaseid=9966&magazinearticleid=143329&siteid=3&magazineid=7)

WISPCon Spring 2002 – 300 WISPs, 2 Reporters, And Quite A Story
If I had any doubts (I didn’t…) that the Wireless Internet Service Provider “industry” was tiny, such doubts would have been rapidly dispelled by my attendance at WISPCon Spring 2002 held in the Chicago area in mid-March 2002. WISPCon was a first-of-its-kind event organized by Michael Anderson, himself a successful WISP in the Chicago area. WISPCon came together, from inspiration to event, in less than two months. Other than a few press releases, Anderson did no advertising. But Anderson did mention WISPCon prominently on Internet.com’s popular isp-wireless mailing list, and 300+ WISPCon attendees, including a number from overseas, was the result. Anderson ended up turning vendors away (he received more than 100 vendor queries, most bemoaning that they had not heard of WISPCon in time to attempt to exhibit - not that there would have been room…) WISPCon stretched over three days with 52 individual speakers (a number speaking in multiple sessions), with unflagging attendance during all three days. There were certainly some attendees that came only for a day, but any absences were more than compensated for by other attendees. WISPCon Fall 2002 will be held in October in the Chicago area (in a considerably larger venue), and invitations will go out to vendors in plenty of time. WISPCon reminds me of the earliest ISPCon conferences put on by Boardwatch Magazine… that eventually grew to require huge conference facilities like the Orlando Convention Center and Sands Convention Center (Las Vegas). I fully expect to attend a 2007 WISPCon in the Sands Convention Center.

Wrap Up – Could The Djinn Be Put Back In The Bottle?
As you read through this issue, you’ll see a number of discussions about various threats to license-exempt wireless. The question has to linger – can license-exempt wireless be shut down? My guess, and my overall read of the situation is that No, license-exempt wireless has passed the point of no return for regulators to have any hope of restricting it.

The various technical arguments, such as those posed by Sirius Radio, are specious. Sirius has confessed that there is no demonstrable problem at present – only their estimation that “There could be a problem… someday… maybe.”

Other threats come in sillier guises, such as proposed requirements that all computing and data communications links implement “content management” and “refuse to process or transmit” illegal content. This includes license-exempt wireless links. Another silly threat is that cable modem companies, especially, are blustering that inexpensive wireless access points make it possible for two neighbors to share the cost of a single cable modem connection, which the cable companies regard as “theft of service”.

My expectation is that once the dust of these and other threats settles a bit, some sanity will prevail (helped along with some skillfully directed lobbying) that a huge (and hugely profitable) economic engine is centered around the use of license-exempt spectrum. Every microwave oven is a high-power 2.4 GHz transmitter. Cordless phones using 2.4 GHz spectrum are now, judging by my last trip through the phone aisle at the local Target store, the most popular type of phone currently being sold. Restricting Wireless LAN use would cause severe disruption at Microsoft, where it’s de rigueur to bring your 802.11b-equipped laptop or Pocket PC to meetings so that you can stay in touch with developments in professional sports, eBay bids, and occasional corporate email. Certainly the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department would not be happy to spend hundreds of dollars per patrol vehicle to prevent potential interference (that hasn’t even proven) to a consumer satellite radio service.

Though it never pays to underestimate opponents with lots of money to lobby and influence Congress and the FCC, I have severe doubts about the ultimate effectiveness of a license-exempt wireless “crackdown”. My skepticism is heightened even more when I recall the last great wave of collective civil disobedience directed towards the FCC – the great Citizen’s Band Radio craze of the 1970’s and the 1980’s. CB was originally a licensed service. During the 1974 Arab Oil Embargo, long-haul truckers used CB to communicate with each other about where diesel fuel could be found and what road segments were aggressively patrolled. Motorists soon caught on that listening in on the truckers was highly useful (and great fun), and the great CB craze was on. Because CB radios could be bought over the counter, very few CB purchasers ever bothered to file for an FCC license to legally operate a CB. Faced with overwhelming indifference to its CB licensing requirements, and lacking the ability to enforce such rules upon millions of otherwise upstanding citizens, the FCC backed down and declared CB to be a “hobbyist” radio service, and henceforth CB licenses were no longer required.

References / For More Information On Broadband Wireless:
• Conference - Broadband Wireless World Forum – www.scievents.com
• Conference - Wireless Communications Association International - www.wcai.com
• Conference – WISPCon – www.primedirective.com/seminar/main.htm
• Trade Association – Wireless Communications Association International (WCA) – www.wcai.com
• Web Page – Broadband Wireless Exchange – www.bbwexchange.com
• Magazine – Broadband Wireless Business – www.broadbandwirelessbusiness.com
• Newsletter – Focus On Broadband Wireless Internet Access – www.strohpub.com/focus.htm

Executive Summary
Whither No License Wireless?
Gordon Cook highlights some of the data points that led to this formative issue, illustrative of how fast the developments are occurring in Broadband Wireless Internet Access and license-exempt wireless. Unfortunately, there are forces at work – the “Teleban” whose agenda has expanded to disrupt wireless before it becomes a more potent threat than it already is. Cook frames a fundamental question regarding Internet policy – is the intent of the regulators also “more of the same?” Is the Internet just another transport mechanism for passive “content” such as cable and broadcast television? Or is it something different entirely, with interactivity inherent and deserving of special treatment for now.

From Consumers To Users (Excerpts)
There are producers, and there are consumers. That’s the historic view, and those who produce think that the arrangement works best when producers “… have high incentives to produce”, including regulatory protection. Yochai Benkler equates the demand for peer-to-peer communications that have come to life on the Internet with a wireless “”infrastructure of first and last resort”. Such a system facilitates exchange between individuals, and why this isn’t perceived as “progress” by content owners under the current “media property” model.

The “Teleban” Are In The Driver's Seat at the FCC
The FCC has clearly indicated their intent to reclassify all Internet services from “telecommunications” services, which are regulated to insure fair and equal access to such services, to “information” services, which are unregulated. Most recently, the FCC has proposed to change cable modem Internet access from a “telecommunications” service to a “information” service. The cable modem providers had little incentive to tolerate competitors, with this NPRM there will be none whatsoever. Gordon Cook analyzes an FCC Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking that explains the justification for this change, in the eyes of the FCC. Gordon goes on to analyze dissenting (as the lone Democrat of the FCC) Commissioner Michael Copps’ individual reply to the NPRM. Most chillingly, Copps states publicly that the FCC has transitioned from an agency charged with enforcing the will of Congress, to an agency who will summarily dismiss court opinion that is contrary to its worldview.

IRAC And The Making of Spectrum Policy
Gordon Cook and Dewayne Hendricks discuss the previously hidden role of a group known as the Interagency Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) within the US Federal Government. IRAC is a powerful force, to which the FCC and its “government spectrum” counterpart, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), defer, despite having no statutory requirement to do so. IRAC’s role only became clear in the aftermath of the FCC’s widely unpopular ruling permitting (with crippling restrictions) the use of Ultra Wideband (UWB) technology. Hendricks discusses recent revelations about IRAC and raises the point that there is no opportunity for public input to IRAC’s decisions. David Reed and Dave Hughes join the discussion with specific questions about IRAC’s roles and goals.

Peter Cochrane Tracks The Decline Of BT And Rise of 802.11b In The UK
Gordon Cook interviews Peter Cochrane. The discussion begins with the disaster that was the UK 3G spectrum auctions, the total “take” of which was $34B and that bankruptcies of “successful” bidders are likely to enter bankruptcy. Cochrane posits a smaller scale approach to broadband deployment using license-exempt 802.11b wireless technology, and dives into detail about how such “clouds” of 802.11b coverage would work, including the practicality of services such as Voice Over IP (VOIP) and other value added services. Cochrane offers anecdotal evidence of just how profoundly such new technologies are affecting decisions at incumbent telecommunications companies.

Cochrane reverts to his BT CTO role when he offers the opinion that the only way for Broadband Wireless to work is to have fiber going into every building to be able to provide source bandwidth for very small wireless cells, and then offers that “provisioning” will be a very large issue. Cochrane offers several interesting insights such as what’s now known as cable television began in the US as individual television viewers constructing their own distribution systems to receive a better television signal in remote areas. The interview concludes with Cochrane offering his views on new technologies such as phased array antennas, mesh networking, free space optics, ultra wideband, and that the biggest problem with “wireless clouds” will be that troubleshooting problems such as “rogue transmitters” will be difficult.

Catalyzing 802.11b Across Wales
Gordon Cook interviews Dave Hughes about Hughes’ proposed project to create a network of community wireless hubs throughout Wales. Hughes goes into exhaustive detail about the genesis of the project, his visits to Wales to explain the project, and along the way a bit of personal Welch history and travelogue. Hughes goes into considerable detail, including his incredulity that BT actually projected the deployment of wireline broadband services in Wales at 10 to 20 years (2022) because the UK government wasn’t contributing sufficiently to make broadband happen in rural areas. Several email messages from Hughes are included which give even more insights into the issues that need to be addressed in the project. Hughes appears to be wholeheartedly throwing his considerable reputation in small-scale wireless projects behind this project, and it will be instructive on a number of levels to see how well the project plays out in a tight funding climate, a system that will require extensive community support (as in technical support), near total incomprehension by UK (but not Wales) politicians, and open hostility from BT. But then, as long-time Cook Report readers know, Dave Hughes loves nothing so much as he loves a challenge.

Boingo Launches As An Aggregator Of Access to Commercial Wi-Fi Hotspots
Gordon Cook looks into Boingo Wireless’ business model, and eventually converses with Sky Dayton. Gordon had lots of questions about the details of Boingo’s operations, and what the value was for those who signed up as Boingo “Microcarriers”. Gordon especially had questions about Boingo’s inclusion of Free Wireless Networks in its Wireless Hotspot location software. Gordon was eventually able to get some of his questions about Boingo answered by Tom Williams – that Boingo’s “sniffer” (find unlisted wireless hot spots) capability was by no means unique to Boingo and that many wireless networks were unsecured and thus vulnerable to unauthorized use and that Boingo’s software was again not unique in this. Gordon unearthed several news articles that related that a number of free wireless networks were declining to be listed in Boingo’s directory because Boingo offered no incentive for doing so other than “publicity”. The article concludes with an email interview in which Dayton minimally explains its payments with “microcarriers” and how Boingo’s listing of free wireless networks is beneficial to them. The article concludes with Dayton claiming to be closely following regulatory developments, but declining to comment.

SPUTNIK Creates Open Source Wi-Fi Gateway Platform
Gordon Cook interviews David LaDuke about Sputnik, Inc.’s recently announced gateway software that purports to allow individuals to begin setting up secure wireless access points. If users A and B both set up Sputnik gateways, user A can authenticate to on User B’s Sputnik gateway. The authentication is provided by Sputnik on its corporate servers. The Sputnik gateway is a specialized build of Linux that implements the functions of a Wireless Access Point on a PC – all that is needed is an inexpensive 802.11b device that is currently supported by Sputnik’s software, a PC to dedicate to the task, and an Internet connection. To be legal, the user’s Internet provider should not prohibit such sharing. Sputnik hopes to make its money from Enterprise versions of the gateway software, and charging customers for access that have not set up Sputnik gateways.

Joltage Combines Role Of Agreggator And Hotspot Creator
Gordon Cook examines the case of Joltage, which has a business model with elements from both Boingo and Sputnik. Like Boingo, Joltage is a purely commercial service provider. Like Sputnik, Joltage provides the software to set up a secure access point with a centralized authentication and billing service.

GoGo Surfer - Used Clothing For Wi-Fi Access
Al Arthur writes about GoGo Surfer, a community center in Bridgeton, NJ that among other things offers high speed Internet access via 802.11b wireless.

License Exempt Regulatory Issues
Gordon Cook compiles a number of email messages posted to the isp-wireless mailing list that try to relate the goings-on at WISPCon, a conference for Wireless ISPs held in Chicago in March. One of the key events at WISPCon was a talk and Q&A session with an FCC staffer from the Chicago FCC Enforcement Bureau, and Gordon excerpts a number of descriptive messages. Dave Hughes weighs in on why the FCC’s Part 15 rules make no sense in the work he is doing to provide telemetry from remote scientific experiments and observation sites (which previously only recorded, to be picked up periodically). A detailed discussion with David Reed and Jim Forster follows, discussing the utility of 802.11b systems in the face of increased FCC enforcement of its Part 15 rules.

Dave Hughes joins the discussion by pointing out that adhering to the technical requirements of individual Part 15 components isn’t sufficient – the antenna, amplifier (if any) and the radio must all be certified as a Part 15 system before they can be used in combination. Dewayne Hendricks and Peter Cochrane join the discussion which continues the discussion about IRAC. The group explores the potential “Local Tragedies Of The Commons” – basically two many radios operating in the same spectrum, in close physical proximity would render all the radios useless. Gordon speculates on the proper role of the FCC in regulating spectrum in an era where radios are pretty capable of “doing what we tell them to do” in using spectrum efficiently – defer to higher-priority uses, use absolutely minimum power, etc. The discussion detours into discussion of cable modem regulatory and technical issues.

The issue of Sirius Radio’s petition to the FCC to restrict potential out of band emissions from 2.4 GHz Part 15 devices is discussed in depth with Roxane Googin. Googin posits that the Nextwave case demonstrates that “possession is 99.99% of the law, and that it would be nightmarish for the FCC to conceivably contemplate hunting down existing Part 15 systems that would not be compliant if the Sirius petition is acted upon as requested. The discussion continues on more general topics regarding FCC regulation.

The “conclusion” to this article offers two “if I were Tsar For A Day” suggestions by David Reed and an article on Do It Yourself Networks by Jim Forester and resulting discussion. Dewayne Hendricks contributes some thoughts on the innovative technology represented by Mesh Networks (this is the company name, not a technical description), which in turn sparks an extended, general discussion on mesh networking, personally maintained wireless hot spots and variations of the commercial wireless hot spot trend. Jim Forster proposes a 9-point “spectrum etiquette”.

Wireless As The Last Hope Of The Independent ISP

Scott McCollough provides commentary on cooperative 802.11b networks, offers a memo from the Texas House State Affairs Committee to “every identifiable broadband provider in Texas” asking about their particular broadband deployments for the purpose of an inquiry into Texas’ broadband policies. A response to the memo from Larry Anglin, an ISP making use of wireless, gives significant insight into one Wireless ISPs operations and services.

Optical Wavelength Trading Technology and Economics
(to be supplied by Gordon Cook, per previous arrangement)

ICANN Issues
(to be supplied by Gordon Cook, per previous arrangement)

ICANN Director Files Suit Against For Access To Its Records
(to be supplied by Gordon Cook, per previous arrangement)

ICANN Preparing To Walk Away From US Jurisdiction Taking Control Of The Internet With It Via the Hijacking of IP Numbers?
(to be supplied by Gordon Cook, per previous arrangement)

Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Committee Membership List

Just as it sounds, a list of names, titles, affiliations, and contact information of IRAC. It’s illuminating just how many agencies are represented on ICANN. Some are logical – Department of the Air Force. Others are less so – Department of Veterans Affairs.

Mercifully... the end of the article.

By Steve Stroh

This article is Copyright © 2002, 2007 by Steve Stroh.

Making wireless work for you.By Dan Cwenar, Executive Vice President & COO, Access Data Corp. Hype aside, wireless technology can make your business more efficient — if it's used wisely.W1. Coverage: The most important piece.The single most important piece of wireless equipment is cell towers — and currently, the United States doesn’t have enough. In fact, U.S. cell-site density is a mere 2.3 towers per 100 square miles compared with 3.8 in Finland, 9.4 in Japan, and a whopping 35 in Germany.1Why do we lag behind our European and Asian counterparts? In a country as large as the U.S., cities are more spread out from each other accounting for choppy coverage, especially when you consider that Code-Distributed Multiple Access, or CDMA, (wireless technology’s dominant standard in the U.S.) uses the 1,900 MHz frequency. While this frequency offers a clearer broadcast than the older 800 MHz signals, it can’t travel nearly as far.Supply and demand is also a factor. Cell towers are installed where there’s a demand for cellular use, typically in major metropolitan areas. Since the demand for coverage is not as strong in outlying areas, wireless communication becomes more unpredictable the farther you travel from “downtown.” Never mind the rural and wide-open spaces in the middle of our nation where population is sparse and demand practically non-existent. In fact, if you plan to tie up a few loose business ends on your next family vacation out west, you might want to leave your wireless devices at home. Otherwise they may become expensive paperweights in your hotel room.Even in areas where demand is great, cell towers are expensive to build and maintain thanks to zoning laws, environmental and esthetic concerns, maintenance issues, and the need for back-up towers should problems arise.

There’s also the time it takes to deploy a new tower, which ranges from 18 to 24 months.When can users expect ubiquitous coverage or 100 percent of the U.S landmass? Until satellite communication is the norm, there will always be locations where it is not economically feasible to build and maintain cell towers. Unlike wireline telephone service, wireless service does not include a surcharge that will be used to pay for service to rural areas.2WORLDWIDE CELL TOWER COVERAGEIf cell tower availability isn’t a problem, there are also coverage issues in-building versus out-of-building and stationary versus moving. While most buildings support wireless communication, wireless service can fluctuate for workers located in the basement or in other “closed-in” windowless environments. In extreme examples, wireless service may be difficult to attain in buildings fabricated during the Cold War due to thick cement-block construction designed to shield citizens from nuclear attack.Out-of-building coverage also presents its own set of dilemmas.

For example, in Manhattan and other major cities, wireless service is often interrupted due to structural interference from buildings that can impede one antenna’s ability to communicate with another. If you’re walking around the city trying to connect via your personal communicator, coverage can be even more unpredictable than when you’re stationary.Likewise, in a moving vehicle, topology comes into play. Just because you can see a cell tower in the distance, doesn’t mean you’ll make a connection, particularly if the tower is perched on top of a hill and you’re located in a valley.

For example, as you drive up and down a highway, you may experience spotty coverage that coincides with mountainous terrain, a particularly frustrating situation when you’re in the passenger seat trying to download information from your corporate Intranet to your PDA — or worse, stranded on the side of the highway with your cell phone trying to reach AAA to report a flat tire. How do you know if you’re covered? Wireless data carriers list coverage areas on their Web sites. Here are a few of the most popular: AT&T: www.attws.com/business/lcorp/explore/wireless_ip/rates.shtmlClick on the blue “Coverage Map” bar at the end of the first paragraph.BSWD: www.bellsouthwd.com/cov/coverage.html Nextel: www.nextel.com/phone_services/coverage/index.shtml.Sprint: http://e15.sprintpcs.com/learnVerizon: www.app.airtouch.com Motient: www.motient.com/findPalm 7: http://wireless.palm.net/coverageKeep in mind when you visit these sites, they’re written by people in Marketing departments. The only true way to tell if you’re actually covered is to test your application or usage on your own in the field.2. Wireless technology standards: Too many cooks.