Wireless

January 29, 2004
What broke in 2003; what needs to be fixed in 2004

Andrew Seybold

UNITED STATES -- There was some good news in 2003. Local number portability (LNP) did not make as much of a difference as predicted, wireless sector showed growth, camera phones took off, Verizon turned on EV-DO in two markets and showed what high-speed data can do, AT&T got EDGE up and running in its GSM footprint, voice pricing continued to come down, and T-Mobile startled the industry with its all-you-can-eat GPRS and Wi-Fi pricing.

Coverage improved, although incrementally, because cities and counties are loath to issue tower permits, in-building coverage became a hot issue, and Wi-Fi is finally getting less hype and more reality (at least, among those who know about these things). However, what did not happen in 2003 is probably more significant than what did. Read on:

• The Nextel/public safety issue of interference was not resolved. I just hope that it won't cost a police officer's life before the FCC and the "consensus group" can make a decision;
• There was no action in the long-term strategy for spectrum allocations. The FCC, the NTIA, Congress, Bush's Spectrum Management Task Force, and others are all at odds with each other;
• No spectrum auctions;
• The industry did not work together to present a unified front to the FCC, so the lobbyists are still in control;
• No mergers and acquisitions (M&A) among the six nationwide wireless network operators;
• No lessening of Wi-Fi's "we will take over the world" hype;
• There was little let up in the wars between GSM and CDMA;
• The few W-CDMA systems that were turned on did not set any subscriber records;
• i-mode did not enjoy success outside of Japan;
• Corporate IT folks did not flock to wireless data services;
• Wi-Fi security showed little improvement;
• GSM did not take over the US, as predicted by the 3G Americas industry group;
• Intel and Cisco did not conquer the wireless world; and
• Microsoft did not set the wireless world on fire.

The Nextel/public safety/commercial interference issue needs a quick settlement. I do not understand why the FCC is dragging its feet. If this issue drags on for another year, someone is bound to get hurt and that someone is most likely to be a police officer.

This situation proves that if we do not have remedies in place before allowing new technologies into the spectrum, we could be asking for additional problems. If the FCC approves broadband over power lines (BPL), it had better make sure to resolve interference issues quickly and easily. In California, the California Highway Patrol uses 42-45MHz for its prime channels.

Managing spectrum crucial
Perhaps, the most disturbing development during 2003 was that public or Internet users made great inroads with the FCC. I have seen numerous articles written by people who have no understanding about RF and how it works, touting how new technologies will mean that an unlimited amount of spectrum will be available. Those who are involved in this industry know that we have a finite amount of spectrum available. Can we develop more spectrum efficient technologies? Yes, we can. Can we develop technologies that will wipe out inference issues and permit people to use the same spectrum for different purposes? Perhaps! However, I am not willing to make this leap of faith without a fallback plan to protect the existing spectrum users.

"Since the Internet is unregulated and works fine, RF spectrum should be unregulated and it will work just fine," is a popular myth. Need more Internet bandwidth? Light up more fiber, sign up for DSL. If you need more spectrum, use what someone else is using. It amazes me that 660MHz of spectrum is assigned for unlicensed use, and those who have access to it want more. In the meantime, many public safety agencies have been waiting for one or two more radio channels for their dispatch systems. When the unlicensed spectrum is used all of the time, we can talk about finding more. Until then, let us talk about finding more spectrum for public safety, business radio users and commercial wireless operators.

Most folks, who write about our unlimited spectrum, do not realise that the FCC does very little when it comes to preventing interference. This task falls under the auspices of industry associations charged with making things work. APCO (The Associated Public Safety Communications Officers) is one example of such organisations. Each month, in different regions, these folks meet and discuss uses for spectrum allocations. In some cases, agencies run tests to ensure "no interference." In other cases, an application is rejected because of the possibility that it will cause interference. In others, the APCO works with agencies involved to find a solution. These folks are not paid for what they do. They take on these responsibilities as they know how important it is to have mission-critical communications.

Even in the ranks of amateur radio operators, there are voluntary co-ordination groups across the country that help determine which radio channels can be re-used, without causing interference. The FCC has done little, if any, of this work for a number of years. Those who proclaim that there is sufficient spectrum for everyone are ignorant of these facts. They would prefer to believe that spectrum can be reused anywhere by anyone. No worries!

Our spectrum management system is broken, and is going to get worse. Why? As the wireless industry is so divided, we are easy pickings for those who think that spectrum-related issues are easy to resolve.

Consider this. The FCC meets with the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters), the next day it meets the APCO, then the CTIA, then the WCA, then the Wi-Fi Alliance, then who knows. You get the picture. The wireless industry is severely fragmented. When special interest groups with an axe to grind say things that make sense to non-technical attorneys (the FCC Commissioners) and grease the skids with checks to the "appropriate" political party, the commissioners listen. It is easier than working to understand the overall picture and listening to those who are talking about making wireless ubiquitous. Who would you listen to?

Need for wireless industry to unite
The wireless industry must unite in 2004. The NAB, APCO, and all of the other wireless-specific organisations need to come together around a table and work on plans to suit their own best interests, while permitting and trying new technologies and ideas.

Until we unite, we will stand as an industry divided. If each organisation representing a specific element of spectrum users that is accustomed to being autonomous insists on having its own say in what happens to the spectrum, others will take it away from us -- pure and simple.

The FCC Commissioners are not dumb, they are attorneys and politically savvy folks. So far, the wireless industry has proven that it is neither. On the other hand, the Internet folks, led by the likes of Intel, Cisco and Microsoft, know how to work a crowd, how to write checks to the proper people, and how to call in debts. If the wireless industry, as we know it, is to survive, we must quickly learn these lessons. If we do not, others who have no understanding of the real issues will be making the decisions for us.