Scriv- When does this happen? Uhhh ... every representative to every standards body that works for a manufacturer is lobbying for what that manufacturer sees as best for their company ... which is not necessarily in alignment with what's best for the public or the operators. Standards participation is considered a business tool. It's that way in ASTM, TIA, ETSI, IEEE, IETF. The rules of these bodies vary greatly in the qualification of users groups to be voting members (the IETF is the most liberal in this respect ... I think virtually ANY participant can vote). Whenever a body is deliberating on something pertinent to an organized industry association, it's important (vital) that the association has an active, VOTING, membership ... and apply that vote to what they feel is best for their represented industry. Does WISPA have a voting membership in the IEEE group formulating the WiMAX standard? It's vital.
Mark- IMO the FCC has certainly been just responding to the market over the last 15yrs (as you advocate). Over this period I think I've become more and more against this as I assess how this has left the US and our airways. In my opinion it's a BAD thing when I'm standing under a cell tower that cannot service my phone even though it's the same frequency. In Europe all towers are mandated compatible as was PREVIOUSLY true in the US (while the EC still regulates European airways for what's best for their people). The US airway have become a free-for-all of non-compatible technologies, with destructive consequences for US manufacturers, operators, and the public in general. When I worked for a manufacturer I voted what management judged was best for that manufacturer. However, I'm now retired, and I've become a vocal advocate that the FCC should resume the role it once held as oversee-er to (at minimum) insure that all deployed equipment plays nice (if not compatibly). I'm disappointed that FCC rules for unlicensed outdoor (all bands) never mandated a minimum set of play-nice media access rules (not to say I didn't cheerfully participate in a proprietary MAC product when I worked for one manufacturer ... but I think I've seen the error of those ways). The classic argument against this is that it inhibits innovation. Not true IMHO. Just look at the 2.4GHz IEEE standards. An organized standards body can, and does evolve standards (802.11b -> 802.11g) such that it is COORDINATED. It's simply not true that standards lock you into obsolete technology. I think the FCC relinquished its responsibility during the 2nd generation cellular licensing process where they became infatuated with how much the auctions could net monetarily ... if they simply allowed the winner to deploy whatever technology they felt like. The airways belong to the American people. It's my government, and I wished they acted in my best interests ... and not as a revenue generator for the federal budget. Rich ----- Original Message ----- From: John Scrivner To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 1:14 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Some "unlicensed" history.... Brilliant - standards building as a means of disabling US access to technology innovation. Wow. I certainly hope you have vision enough to see and thwart this type of activity in the future. I have heard you have the intellectual knowledge to do so. Please let us know when to cry foul in the future. Scriv Rich Comroe wrote: >>Some wireless business phone systems have been built, but it is all but >>impossible to find, if you search for u-pcs specific products. >> >> > >Search for a different name: "PHS". It was fascinating to walk the streets of Tokyo and see crowded areas where hundreds of people would be talking on their 1880-1930MHz PHS phones (Personal Handyphone System). It became a public CRAZE to take your digital cordless home-phones with you, and thousands of mating digital cordless phone base units poped up everywhere on every street corner and shopping area. > > > >>Speculation as to why the spectrum lies fallow and almost completely unused >>tends to revolve around the FCC requiring specific protocols and procedures >>for interference avoidance and around the extremely low ERP limits. I don't >>know that they're right or wrong. >> >> > >It seems only natural that the FCC set a protocol standard, as it could never work if every manufacturer's model were non-compatible one another (just like WiFi). Roaming and interoperability are essential if you want your cordless phone to work when in range of any base unit. > >While wildly popular in Japan, it never caught on in other places. England tried it with their CT2 (called TelePoint) and it flopped (the dogs wouldn't eat it, and there were more base units than handsets when it was cancelled). According to wikipedia its popularity in Japan eventually faded as well, while it's enjoying a resurgence in other Asian markets. > >Unfortunately it looks like the US allocation didn't match the Japanese allocation exactly or you could just purchase Japanese product (there seemed like hundreds of different models for sale on the streets of Akihabara). However, back then it was often INTENTIONAL to NOT set the US rules the same as in other countries as a way of preventing existing foreign products from being imported. Who lobbies for the protocol and procedure rules the FCC adopted? Likely US manufacturers who would never have had a chance to get started were US band rules set the same as Japans. Problem is, if US manufacturers choose not to step-up, no product becomes available. Unfortunately I am personally aware of examples where manufacturers intentionally lobbied for rules that would make existing foreign radios noncompatible even though they had no intention of building. It happens. You likely never heard of a product called DSRR either (digital short range radio) which was allocated but intentionally torpedoed by manufacturers lobbying for standards that they knowingly never intended to build to. > >Rich > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: wispa > To: WISPA General List > Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 8:53 PM > Subject: [WISPA] Some "unlicensed" history.... > > > In the early 90's the FCC set about to create additional unlicensed and > licensed spectrum. This was specifically for "PCS", or "personal > communications services". > > UTAM was created and tasked with the job of migrating what was then a large > network of terrestrial microwave networks to other frequencies / spectrum. > Over 100 mhz of spectrum was cleared by hte FCC / UTAM and in the mid 90's > it began to be auctioned off to PCS providers. Sprint, I believe, was the > first to offer services using this spectrum - ergo, Sprint PCS. UTAM then > acted as frequency coordinator as new users came in and old users migrated - > especially for unlicensed. > > Of this spectrum, 1910 to 1930 mhz and 2390 to 2400 mhz is now unlicensed > spectrum. Originally a larger slice, eventually part of it was given to > Nextel and part devoted to AWS (advanced Wireless SErvices) and auctioned > off. Why? The space, after years, was still almost utterly unused. > > Smack dab in the middle of the PCS spectrum lies fallow ground. Search the > internet and you're unable to find U-PCS (Unlicensed PCS) products. UTAM > cleared hte spectrum, and fees from manufacturers of the products for this > spectrum were to be used to pay back the costs of liberating the unlicensed > spectrum. Today those fees are $50k per manufacturer and $0.50 per device > to use the space. > > U-PCS has very low ERP limits, it's useful for in-building phones or > networking devices. HOwever, the FCC created its own version of a non- > interference protocol and specified channel maximum and minimum sizes, and > nobody built networking devices for that frequency. > > Some wireless business phone systems have been built, but it is all but > impossible to find, if you search for u-pcs specific products. > > UTAM remains millions of dollars in debt after paying users to clear the > microwave spectrum. > > Speculation as to why the spectrum lies fallow and almost completely unused > tends to revolve around the FCC requiring specific protocols and procedures > for interference avoidance and around the extremely low ERP limits. I don't > know that they're right or wrong. > > Each time the FCC promotes the idea of more unlicensed spectrum, > this "waste" as many industry types like to call it is shoved to to their > face. Thus, the FCC's reluctance in the future to try to specificy any > specific technology or means to do anything. > > This information may explain some industry opposition to unlicensed use of > tv whitespace. While we see unlicensed as viable, it's easy to see that > arguments against free use can be made, especially when billions of dollars > can be obtained through auctioning, and when "unlicensed" means the kind of > interference and unsuitability for WISP use of both 2.4 and 900 ism bands > in some areas. > > What is needed is proposals that walk the line between locking out small > enterprise and innovation and allowing degeneration into uselessness due to > either excess regulation, or proliferation of noise in a free-for-all. > > Unlicensed could be made to work. Assuming that the FCC has a type > acceptance that only allows WISP type gear to exist. Or a registration > type license that coordinates spectrum use and specifies the kind of use it > has. > > The "listen before transmit" requirement for U-PCS is the most common > reason given in my reading, for it's failure to be used. Yet, without a > similar mechanism, tv whitespace will become unusable or will have to be > exclusive use only. > > WISP success is mostly due to the creativity of people using 'open' > spectrum. What is now needed is a way to improve on that creative > deployment capability and at the same time make sure that we are neither > politically nor tecyhnologically limited in new spectrum. > > Just my opinion... > > -------------------------------------------- > Mark Koskenmaki <> Neofast, Inc > Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains > 541-969-8200 > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
