He also said that the FCC would “find” and re-allocate up to 500 MHz of additional spectrum for broadband services over the next 10 years, and the 700-MHz D Block would be auctioned without specific requirements for sharing with the public safety community. This particular 10 MHz of spectrum is vital to the success of the public safety system. Since the FCC will be coming up with an additional 500 MHz of spectrum, it seems strange that it would want to auction this 10 MHz of spectrum (5X5) adjacent to the spectrum already licensed to the Public Safety Spectrum Trust (PSST).

The first problem with this is that 10 MHz of spectrum is not enough for either the public safety community or a commercial operator to handle all of the data traffic in the top 50-75 urban areas. Those looking at the D Block to compete with incumbent 700-MHz spectrum holders should do the math. Even using LTE, 10 MHz of spectrum will not enable any new operator to compete with Verizon, which has 22 MHz of spectrum, or AT&T, which has at least 12 MHz of spectrum with 24 MHz in many of the major cities. So why is the FCC making this recommendation? Some within the FCC and some who don’t own 700-MHz spectrum believe that 10 MHz is all the public safety community needs.

The Chairman began his term by stating that the FCC would be driven by facts and empirical data, and its decisions would be fact-based in nature. Yet it has not looked at what the public safety community will actually need in the way of broadband spectrum in major urban areas. Perhaps it believes the hype that LTE will provide 50 Mbps of data speeds and capacity, which is not the case. In reality, in a 10-MHz portion of spectrum, the first iteration of LTE will provide data speeds somewhere in the range of 10-15 Mbps  of shared bandwidth, meaning the more devices needing to use this spectrum in a given cell sector, the less speed there will be for each of them.

What is being missed here is that public safety agencies respond to many different types of emergencies and when they do, it is not unusual for there to be a large number of vehicles on the scene. With an apartment house fire in a city, for example, there could be dozens of pieces of fire equipment and a large number of fire personnel on the scene, a number of police vehicles and personnel to help with crowd control and traffic flow, and multiple paramedic and ambulance personnel. The same thing is true for a police emergency, even a murder, where uniformed officers, detectives, crime scene investigators, and emergency services vehicles and personnel are needed. In each of these scenarios, for the duration of the incident, these vehicles and people are concentrated into a single area and will most likely be served by a single cell sector or at most, two cell sectors.

In each of these cases, if the public safety community is relying on data services to coordinate the incident and to receive updated information, feed video of the scene back to the dispatch or incident command center, and to work the scene, it is easy to see that the less spectrum you have the less efficient all of these services will be. Since the FCC Chairman has said that he will review data points and facts before moving forward, I would like to suggest that those within the FCC read a recent white paper published by the City of New York. It sets up the case for spectrum usage for broadband systems and was the work of the City Police and Fire Departments as well as New York City Information Technology and Telecommunications. This document should be reviewed and attention should be paid to the points it makes.

The reason is simple. New York City has its own private broadband system that has been in operation for a number of years. It is on the 2.5-GHz band and it uses a different technology than that proposed for the 700-MHz band, however, it provides valuable, real-world information about the types of data usage and the amount of data required for many of the applications being used every day. Further, since New York City has this system in operation, it has firsthand knowledge of what is required and knows what additional applications and services it plans to deploy.

Other cities are making use of commercial broadband services, but few if any have deployed as many different applications and services as New York City. Since this is a public document, we have posted a PDF copy of this white paper on our site and suggest that it is a valuable resource for the FCC where it has been filed but not necessarily widely read by various bureaus and departments, Homeland Security, lawmakers, commercial network operators, and equipment and device vendors. In other words, this document should be the starting point for anyone who wants or needs a real understanding of the issues facing the public safety community and the amount of data that will be required on a day-to-day basis and during local and larger incidents.

I would like to suggest that you read this excellent paper and that you share it with others within your organizations who are interested in next-generation broadband services, and with those who want to really understand the types of applications the public safety community is using today and contemplating for the future.

The FCC Chairman has asked for information and data, and New York City has certainly delivered the goods!

Andrew M. Seybold

700MHz Whitepaper on Spectrum Feb 2010 FINAL

The theory behind granting the first block of public safety broadband spectrum was twofold. First, this spectrum grant was designed to help public safety with its interoperability issues. Second, it was put into play to provide cost savings by making commercial technologies available to the public safety community at greatly reduced costs. Meeting these goals will require the “interoperability” of the public safety and commercial sectors.

Designing a new nationwide broadband network or a series of regional networks that will be tied together is outside the public safety community’s experience, and some public safety network requirements are not yet understood by commercial wireless.

Public safety’s current radio systems are based on high-power radio sites and high-power handheld and mobile units, and do not involve cell site hand-off. While some public safety systems are quite complex in nature, they are far different from typical cell systems with lower-power equipment and mobile devices, and the design criteria is vastly different.

There is no better way to get the ball rolling than to attend each other’s shows.

IWCE starts on Wednesday March 10 and runs until Friday March 12. However, there are two pre-show days, Monday March 8 and Tuesday March 9, made up of educational sessions, which the IWCE calls the College of Technology. Many of these sessions are about topics that won’t be of interest to most commercial vendors, but on Tuesday I am conducting an afternoon session called “4G 101,” and there is an Interoperability 101 session, one on mesh networks, a basic IP networking seminar, radio over IP, and even Land Mobile 101, which would be a great session for anyone in the commercial sector to attend.

The main show features exhibits from the two-way radio vendors as well as some commercial operators and equipment vendors. AT&T and Verizon are both on a number of panels and sessions discussing the convergence of two-way radio (land mobile radio or LMR) and commercial networks, and many of those spearheading the public safety effort to deploy LTE on 700 MHz will be there. I am also on several other panels during the week and I am a member of the Private Wireless Forum sig, which will be hosting a cocktail reception nearby on Thursday night that is usually attended by a number of key people within the two-way radio and public safety community. This show is a great place to meet these people, get to know them, and let them get to you know you.

Meanwhile, CTIA Wireless 2010, March 23 through March 25, is a great venue for the public safety community to learn more about the world of commercial wireless and to talk directly to network operators, device vendors, and software developers. There are a number of pre-show educational courses the day before the show (Tuesday March 22) including our day-long Andrew Seybold Wireless University in its 15^th year. During the show itself, there are many sessions that could provide a great foundation for learning more about commercial wireless. If you decide to go to CTIA Wireless 2010, contact me about attending our invitation-only 20^th Annual Wireless Dinner at CTIA on Wednesday night. This is the longest running event for top executives in the wireless space and it is usually filled to capacity (300).

A number of issues will be affecting both the LMR and commercial wireless markets in coming years and cross attendance at these two shows will prove to be beneficial to both groups. There is a steep learning curve ahead for those involved in public safety communications and for those within the commercial wireless field who want to work with public safety. What better way to begin building your knowledge about another side of wireless than to attend events that are designed primarily for the other marketplace.

Take a look at the two websites, make your reservations now, and see with your own eyes how different public safety and commercial wireless are. Equally important, learn how helpful they can be to each other. I hope to see you at both shows this year.

Andrew M. Seybold

You are also trying to change the business model and selling phones both through a network operator (T-Mobile USA) and direct to consumers. The consumer price point of $500+, as Apple learned, cannot be sustained past the initial flurry of sales. According to a recent report in CEA SmartBrief, and based on numbers from Mobile Analytics, you have managed to sell only 20,000 devices since your January 5 launch compared to Verizon’s 250,000 Motorola Droid phones in a similar timeframe.

Further, you are pressuring T-Mobile to increase its termination fee for customers who opt out of the 2-year contract to the highest in the industry. I’m not sure whether you are trying to keep Nexus One users by imposing the higher termination fee or if you don’t understand that the FCC is already looking into termination fees and whether they should be regulated. In either case, this is not a smart move.

Then there are the complaints being posted on the Internet, the most significant of which are spotty 3G coverage and lack of customer support (an issue I know you are addressing, but it is a killer). Customer support is what distinguishes companies and so far your customer support rates Fs and Ds from most of your customers. Part of the issue is that there is nowhere for customers to go when there is a problem. With an iPhone, they can go to an Apple store or an AT&T store, with a BlackBerry or Motorola Droid they can go to the network store, and they can get good customer service for all of these via phone and on the web.

You can blame only a few of the complaints on the fact that the phone switches off the T-Mobile 3G network onto its EDGE network. My T-Mobile 3G BlackBerry works fine and stays connected to the 3G network while the Nexus One switches to EDGE. Just so you don’t feel alone, many iPhone 3GS customers are keeping their iPhone in EDGE-only mode to avoid the same type of switching problems. As AT&T upgrades its network, this will become less of a problem. However, the switching problem with the Nexus One appears to be internal to the device.

Perhaps it will become clear to you why network operators test phones and certify them before they are put onto a network. Building a phone that works on T-Mobile’s network does not guarantee it will work on AT&T’s network, or Vodafone’s, or any of the other GSM/WCDMA networks in the world. Each network has differences in switching and back-end services. One reason the iPhone works so well on the AT&T network, even in EDGE, is that AT&T worked with Apple and made some enhancements and changes to the network to be able to provide a better user experience.

The Nexus One is neither an iPhone killer nor a BlackBerry killer. You have made a mistake countless other handset vendors have made. The device is only one element in the success of handsets. What makes them true success stories, starting with the BlackBerry, is that they are complete end-to-end solutions from their desktop and server back-ends through the network and to the device. The Nexus One is sleek and nice. It is fast and the screen is great, but before someone can say it is the phone they want to use, they have to invest a lot of time setting it up and installing the types of applications they want. And it appears that they have to be willing to let Google become their back-end with Gmail, Google calendar, and more. ESPN found out the hard way that tying a phone to a specific type of service or application does not work in today’s world.

There are some things you did learn from others. The removable battery is one example. Another is one of Apple’s biggest issues to this day. You did not, out of the box, claim that this version of the Nexus One is for business customers. Apple learned the hard way that consumers and business customers are oftentimes one in the same. You are promising another Nexus designed for business, but if you are serious about that, it had better work with Microsoft’s Outlook out of the box. I think that will be difficult for Google since you seem to think Microsoft is the enemy, as are wireless network operators.

There is still time for you to become a competitor in this market. You have a good vendor that knows what it is doing, but it appears as though you might not have listened to HTC when it came to some aspects of the phone, which is another common tendency. Back in the day (so to speak) handset vendors showed up at the network operator’s offices and said, “Here is the next phone you will be selling,” and network operators accepted phones developed and designed by device vendors.

Over time, the network operators began to refuse to do business this way. Today, most device designs include network operator input. With the combination of smart device vendors and input from network operators, the device business has flourished. People like to be able to customize their devices and you will find, for example, that millions of BlackBerrys and iPhones have been personalized in a variety of ways at the whims of the customers. While you do allow for some personalization, much of what you are missing in the way of features and functions are things that could be augmented and/or enhanced by the network operators. Building a generic device designed to work on every network does not necessarily mean it will work the same way on each or that customers will be happy with the performance.

So as I said, Google, I welcome you to wireless, but I think it is time you stop trying to mold wireless into what you think it should be—a Google or Internet extension—and spend some time learning what wireless customers want from their devices and networks. The Nexus One is not a bad first effort and I am sure it will get better over time. RIM, Apple, and others were fast learners and then leaders. Let’s see how fast you can learn.

Andrew M. Seybold

I am sure that signing up for service on a notebook is really easy, but on the BlackBerry it took some time to fill things in correctly and to enter my credit card number and billing information. However, once it was set up, the system asked if I wanted to save the credit card information for the next time I want to use the system and I checked the ‘yes’ box. It took a few minutes to complete the credit card check and then I was connected. (I had turned off my T-Mobile and Bluetooth radios so only the Wi-Fi radio was active.) After a few minutes, I began receiving email and during the entire trip I responded to messages and kept up with what was happening. Since most of my day-to-day communications with my clients is via email, this worked out well for me.

I tried to see if text messaging or voice calling would work since both normal voice conversations and text on the T-Mobile Hotspot @Home system work from my access  points at home, in my office, and in most airports around the nation. I found that neither worked, but since what I really wanted was my email I was okay with that. When you sign up, the system asks you to be a good citizen and not use the network for voice-over-IP calls and to be sensitive about what sites you are viewing since your screen might be viewed by others on the flight. I had upgraded to first class and watched to see if any other passengers were using the Wi-Fi connection on their notebooks or BlackBerrys. I didn’t see anyone who appeared to be connected, but then again, this is a new service.

Since I had to change planes in Dallas, I would have had to pay the $7.95 charge twice to use it for the entire trip, but if I had been on a direct flight from one coast to another, I would only have  had to pay the $7.95 fee once. This is American’s first attempt at offering Wi-Fi and I am sure there will be a learning process. Because I was using my BlackBerry and did not try the browser, I have no idea about data speed to the passenger, but next time I am on a flight with Wi-Fi I will try my notebook and run a few speed tests.

If it catches on, there could be so many customers on the system that it would be very slow. At this point, I am not sure how many access points are being used to cover the entire plane or how much bandwidth there is for the backhaul. And since I was not using a notebook, I was unable to determine how much latency was introduced because of the connection between the plane and the ground. Still, it worked well for me and I was able to answer a number of emails while in the air. When I arrived in Dallas to change planes, I was completely up to date and did not have to worry about reading and answering emails while moving through the airport.

The second flight was not equipped with Wi-Fi and was more like a normal flight—no interruptions from the ground, which is nice, especially if you want to use the time to relax, read a book, or even get some work done. We all know that email tends to interrupt what we are doing, and many of us keep a screen open with our email client running when we are in the office. At some times this is a distraction, but at other times, at least for me, it enables me to stay current with my clients’ questions and to respond to requests for services in near-real time. However, plane time has always been time when you are out of touch and don’t have to worry about being on top of what is going on. I think the uptake will depend on the person and how he/she normally works. Some of us react to every message received by our wireless email device as soon as it comes in (if we are not in a meeting), but many people I know check their device only periodically to make sure they have not missed anything and don’t spend much time answering emails wirelessly unless they are  urgent.

When people first started talking about wireless on airplanes including voice and data, I was less than enthusiastic. I don’t want the guy sitting next to me to spend the entire flight talking loudly on his phone. The airphones that used to be in the planes were rarely used and disappeared fairly quickly after 9/11, although I am assured that the two were not connected. Now it appears as though the airlines are settling on data-only services, trying to exclude Skype and other VoIP services, which is fine with me, since many people are already using notebooks while they travel and it won’t be any different if they are connected to the Internet.

I am not at all sure about the pricing model. I am not familiar with prices being charged on trans-Atlantic and Pacific flights, but it seems to me that $8 is too much for a 2.5 hour flight, especially if all I want is to have my email running on my notebook or smartphone. But perhaps it is not too much if I want to use the Internet and surf the web or conduct some research, but I think most business people will simply want to stay connected to their email, and I doubt their companies will pay for airborne Internet connectivity. So I am suggesting that the pricing model be changed. Perhaps there could be one model to connect to an email server for say, $4.00 per flight, and one that provides for full access for $8.00 per flight, or one to purchase access for all of the flights on a single day or during a single trip. I’m sure there will be some changes in the pricing schemes, and I would like to offer my own option: I will pay 50,000 of my banked miles for access to email during all of my flights in a given year and 75,000 or 100,000 miles for full Internet connectivity.

I don’t think tourists will want to use the wireless Internet while in the air. I view this as primarily a business opportunity for the airlines, and much like hotel Internet connectivity and Wi-Fi connectivity in coffee shops and fast food restaurants. I think the model will change from a charge to a perk, and that airlines that make it a perk sooner rather than later will benefit by having made Wi-Fi available. Many hotels used to charge $10 a night for an Internet connection and many still do. But many offer it for free now, and MacDonald’s just announced it will stop charging for Wi-Fi Internet. Airlines are charging for checking bags, over-sized chocolate chip cookies, and many other things that used to be perks, so I am sure they consider Wi-Fi Internet access to be worth what they are charging. But I don’t think many people will pay $8 for access during a 2-hour flight. Perhaps once, because it is fun. I have to say that I enjoyed sending out emails telling people I was sitting on a plane at 39,000 feet. It felt like when we got our first cell phone and burned out countless minutes calling all our friends to tell them we had a wireless phone, or when we got our first BlackBerry and touted our ability to respond to emails no matter where we were.

Some people will pay because they HATE being out of contact. (The same business people who never take vacations because they fear they won’t be missed?) However, once the novelty wears off, I think most of us will have to be incented to use the service on a regular basis. Airplanes have come to the last place where we can enjoy freedom from our bosses and clients for a few hours. Now I can pay for a service that will enable them to interrupt my quiet time? I think not.

Speaking of freedom from work, best wishes to each and every one of you for a joyous Holiday Season.

Andrew M. Seybold

Telus is and will remain a CDMA network operator, as will Bell Mobility in Canada. Both offer EV-DO Rev A in most of their coverage area and have roaming agreements between themselves and other networks in Canada and around the world. Rogers, the third network provider in Canada, is a GSM/HSPA network operator, and while it has rolled out HSPA in some parts of its coverage area, it does not begin to match the large area covered by this new combination network.

Bell Mobility and Telus have worked together in the past but not on building a shared network. This is a first, but on other sharing agreements the two have found that sharing has worked out well for them. In this case, they built a large (and growing) HSPA+ network they are billing as a 21-Mbps network that will deliver about 10 Mbps of download speed to its customers. They shared the capex and the sites, and of course they will share the opex. By sharing, the network was built faster and covers more territory than either could have done on its own. Both companies realized that they could share a common network and vie for customers based on what they have to offer in the way of applications, services, and customer support.

Telus, for example, is promoting itself as a business-friendly network and not a network solely for consumers—although it will be selling the iPhone and other consumer products. It is making a special effort to attract small, medium, and large companies to this new network by setting up priority calling help desks, a policy of shipping a replacement device to anyone whose device is broken, lost, or stolen anywhere in the world, and by working with business customers to help them integrate this new wireless broadband network into their existing wired and wireless systems. Jim Senko, Telus’ Vice President of Mobility Solutions Marketing, spoke about the company and its broad range of services from Mike (the Canadian version of Nextel) to its CDMA and EV-DO Rev A network, and now its new HSPA+ network.

The HSPA+ network has the best coverage of all of the networks, with the exception of one area of Canada that will be built out over the next year and will be the fastest of them all. However, Mr. Senko was quick to point out that Telus does not intend to migrate its EV-DO customers who are happy with the network and performance to the HSPA+ network. Rather, it will go after companies that have not yet deployed wireless broadband or that need a faster network with better overall coverage and might have employees who travel to countries where EV-DO is not offered.

Some of the trade and business press tried to put this network into the category of a commodity network, which is basically a pipe delivering content. Telus made it clear, at least to me, that it understands that network technology can no longer be used to sell a network. Services, applications, devices, and customer care will differentiate one network from another and make one more competitive than another.

This partnership is not the type of thing Google and others have been advocating as part of their Open Access push. Google does not want network operators to sell anything but wireless connectivity—all device and application sales would be through a third party, which means the only income for network providers would come from the per-minute or per-kilobyte charges customers pay. Anyone who does the math for the capex and opex of running a wireless network knows there would be no incentive to build out a network under these conditions.

This Telus/Bell Mobility partnership provided the companies with cost savings and more coverage in a shorter period of time. Customers benefit from better coverage and, I believe, better service from the two network operators since they are not only competing with Rogers, they are also competing with each other. Another aspect of this partnership is that in Canada, the AWS auction was set up to encourage new players who will have to build greenfield networks. Telus and Bell Mobility were able to get their new network in the ground and on the air before new AWS entrants complete their networks, which is a decided advantage.

The one thing that surprised me, and perhaps this will change, is that Telus did not talk about dual-mode devices that would work on both EV-DO and HSPA+. There are such devices available today; Verizon Wireless sells several BlackBerry models and other devices that are designed for international roaming, but you cannot use them on, say, both the Verizon and AT&T networks in the United States. The SIM has to be for Vodafone or a non-U.S. carrier to be recognized by the device. It would not take much to change the software to permit one device to operate on both of Telus’ networks.

This is also true of notebook computers with an embedded multi-mode and multi-spectrum-capable Qualcomm Gobi chipset. A notebook/netbook on Verizon’s network can also be used in the United Kingdom on the Vodafone network. I have discussed this with several software vendors and they claim that it would be easy enough to build a client for the Gobi chipset that would permit the notebook/netbook to look for both HSPA and EV-DO signals and select the strongest signal for a given session.

Using these types of dual-technology devices would enable Telus customers to take advantage of the broadband networks and mix and match their fleet of devices depending on location and data speed requirements. Verizon will be offering devices that work on LTE on 700 MHz and EV-DO Rev A on 800 MHz and 1900 MHz, and devices that will include other portions of the spectrum to make them truly international devices. It seems as though Telus could start with HSPA/EV-DO and as its HSPA+ network is upgraded to LTE, it would already have a choice of devices because of the Verizon LTE build-out.

In regard to the HSPA+ network itself, every site is connected to the main network via fiber, which will be needed not only for HSPA+ but also as it moves toward LTE in a few years. Telus has recognized that it cannot afford to have a fast wireless network that has any choke points, so it spent the money upfront to provide an end-to-end network without any obvious choke points.

The Telus/Bell Mobility partnership is not like one network owning the infrastructure and one that is an MVNO on the network. Rather, it is about two networks that compete directly with each other building out their next-generation broadband network faster and to cover more of the Canadian population than would have been possible building it themselves. There will be fierce competition, of that you can be assured, but it won’t be based on coverage or technology. It will be based on pricing, device selection, applications, and customer service.

Actually, there was one example of a shared network prior to the AT&T/Cingular merger. In California, AT&T and T-Mobile shared much their network. However, during the merger, the federal government required AT&T to divest its interest in the joint network.

We can expect to see more of this type of joint network development around the world, perhaps even in the United States in rural areas where the return on investment models are tougher than in urban areas. As Telus and Bell Mobility have discovered, it makes great economic sense.

Andrew M. Seybold

Some of the more famous RCA members from radio history include Armstrong, Fred Link,Gunther , Poppele, Grebe, and Goldwater, and many pioneers in the industry are among today’s membership including Martin Cooper, the man behind the first Motorola handheld cell phone, Ralph Haller, ex-FCC, and Mal Gurian. I always enjoy mingling and chatting with some of the greats who have advanced our industry in so many different ways.

Many within the RCA are amateur (ham) radio operators as well as professionals in communications, attorneys whose practices are related to wireless services, and a number of members from the vendor community.

This year Harris was the Premier sponsor, Platinum sponsors included Aurora Marketing, EMR Consulting, MissionCritical Magazine, Schwaninger & Associates, and Telewave, Inc., and Hutton, WFDU FM, Biby Publishing, Daniels Electronics, Thales, Wilson Electronics, and Waterford Consultants were among the banquet sponsors.

The RCA honored a number of people who have contributed to one or more facets of wireless including Ralph Haller for his dedication to amateur radio, Larry Conlee from Research In Motion for engineering excellence, Carole Perry for her dedication to the RCA’s youth education committee, and Don Root, who received the Richard DeMello award for his dedicated work on behalf of the public safety community.

This is a great organization doing important work and we are actively seeking new members. We do much more than hold a yearly banquet-there are several education committees and scholarship funds, and technical sessions are held and articles are published throughout the year. We sponsor a breakfast at many of the conferences held in the United States including IWCE, this year at CTIA, I believe, and at APCO and other conferences.

This is a wonderful organization to be a member of, especially with the many opportunities it provides to talk with some of the remaining “fathers” of wireless and learn more about early experiences directly from them. The RCA also works with young people, encouraging them to become involved in wireless programs at universities and colleges and to enter into this exciting field. The RCA awards scholarships to assist students interested in wireless as they attend college and earn their degree before joining us in the field.

Over the Radio Club’s one hundred years, we have evolved from spark-gap telegraph systems to wireless broadband devices that fit into the palms of our hands. We have seen wireless continue to be the vital link during disasters, fires, floods, and other major and minor events. We have also seen an explosion in the popularity of wireless. Today, nearly 90% of those living and working in the United States use wireless devices-which are actually two-way radios dressed up as phones.

Just as the industry needs an infusion of young, bright people who have radio running through their blood, so too does the Radio Club of America if we are to pass along more of the vital lessons our living pioneers can share with future generations. Applications for membership are available on the RCA website and from other RCA members. You might be surprised at who within your own organization are members of the RCA and participate in its activities. If you would like to find out more, refer to www.radioclubofamerica.org. I hope to see you soon at an RCA breakfast or at next year’s banquet in New York City in November.

Andrew M. Seybold

See Archived Copy of this blog post for previous comments.

Wired telephone systems started out with one pair of wires that was assigned a number to each phone. When we dial a call, it is routed through switching centers until it is connected to the correct pair of wires on the other end. This system has worked well for years, though there are times such as Mother’s Day when the switches run out of capacity to assign calls to the proper pairs. In a wired world we don’t have to worry about bandwidth because everyone has their own.

When analog cellular was first turned on, it worked in a similar fashion. Once a call was placed, it consumed a single radio channel until it was completed. If the call was between two cell phones, it consumed one radio channel from the calling phone to the nearest cell site and one more radio channel from the cell site closest to the receiving phone. With cell to landline, it consumed one radio channel to the nearest cell site and one wired circuit from the nearest wired switch to the receiving landline phone. While this worked well, it also meant that cell site congestion could occur if too many people within the same cell site were trying to make or receive calls. The only real difference between a wired and wireless call was that as you moved around in the wireless world, the channel you were using might be switched to another channel at another cell site, but it would still occupy a dedicated channel until you were finished.

Once we got to digital, things began to happen differently. In the digital wired world it is possible to put two or more calls on the same phone line, or a voice call and DSL for Internet access on that single line with no degradation of voice quality or slowing of data rates. In wireless, once we got to GSM and CDMA, two types of digital, we could use the same amount of spectrum to process more calls than when we had to dedicate a single channel to each call. With GSM, the calls are broken up into time slices and two or more are combined, using what would normally have been a little more than one analog voice channel. In CDMA, many of the analog voice channels were combined into one broader channel on which multiple conversations could take place.

Going to digital increased the capacity of our wireless networks by ten times or more-the same amount of spectrum in a cell site could handle approximately ten times as many calls as when calls took up an entire channel. As digital systems advanced, the call capacity per amount of spectrum has increased.

But in second-generation systems, if you tried to put packets of data into the same amount of spectrum that carries several voice calls, you would find that data speeds were limited because bandwidth is limited. This is why data rates for CDMA2000 1X and GSM/EDGE are only about 100 Kbps. In the simplest of terms, if you are using an analog to digital voice converter (vocoder) that requires 8 Kbps of bandwidth and you want to send and receive data at 64 Kbps, you have to aggregate eight voice channels to have enough bandwidth.

Enter Broadband

When third-generation services became available, we began to see some decent wireless data rates. At first, UMTS (wideband CDMA) was capable of only about twice the speed of GSM/EDGE (256 Kbps) and this was in a bandwidth of 5 MHz. But this was quickly improved and today that same 5 MHz of spectrum can provide service for numerous voice calls along with a number of data sessions at speeds higher than 1 Mbps. And with HSPA plus, data speeds of up to 7 Mbps are claimed. On the CDMA side of the aisle where channels are 1.5 MHz wide, 1 Mbps+ data speeds were realized by using one channel (1.5 MHz) for voice services and another channel for data services (EV-DO). One reason CDMA can deliver the same data rate in 1.5 MHz as UMTS can deliver in 5 MHz is that CDMA does not mix voice with data. However, the UMTS network has more capacity because it is a 5-MHz channel where the CDMA system uses channels that are only 1.5 MHz wide.

As we move toward 4G or OFDMA technology, we will be able to move a lot more bits per second in the same amount of spectrum so our data capacity will be even greater. However, 4G networks were designed from the beginning as data networks. Any voice will be packetized as with VoIP, One Voice, or one of the other packetized voice systems. Packets will be packets regardless of what they contain. This is one reason 2G and 3G systems will be around for a long time. They can handle voice less expensively than 4G systems can today and they are already built out. If you add voice to a predominately data network, you have to worry about the exact timing of the packets that carry voice. They have to arrive on the other end quickly enough to be reassembled as audio that can be understood and has the characteristics of the speaker’s voice. Data packets can be delayed or arrive in mixed order and when reassembled the data still reads or looks correct.

The world we are heading into is dramatically different from the world we are coming from. We grew up with voice systems and then data services were added. Now we are heading toward data services where voice might be added someday. But there will still be a bandwidth cost difference between delivering a voice call and delivering a data call. If we go back to a standard voice vocoder that takes 8 Kbps of bandwidth and measure it against streaming video that is being delivered at 2 Mbps, the theoretical cost difference is huge.

Let’s say that the voice call costs $0.05 a minute and takes up 8 Kbps of capacity. Meanwhile, the video takes up 2 Mbps of capacity or the equivalent of 250 voice calls. What this means is that the data we download for that one video is worth $12.50 a minute! Yet we don’t begin to pay that kind of money for our mobile data services. We can also see from this example that network operators need more spectrum to deliver data than to deliver voice services.

Note: The numbers used above are based on published per-minute costs and may not represent actual costs. For example, Barney, one of our consulting partners, provides a more real-world scenario for his iPhone “Andy, consider this. Last month I used 126,881 KB for $30 on my iPhone, which comes to $.000236 per KB. If I used my 450 non nights and weekends minutes in the plan for $39.99, each minute would cost $.0888. However, I only used 83 minutes so each minute cost me $0.4819, nearly 50 cents a minute. So 83 minutes at 8 KB is 664 KB for $40 or $.06 per KB. So voice costs me about 250 times per KB more than data.” However, for a network operator, the cost of delivering data is higher than the cost of delivering voice because it requires more bandwidth, and many data plans are capped at a specific amount of data per month as opposed to the iPhone pricing model.

Typically, the next question is why we can get to 2 Mbps or even 5 Mbps of data in a wired system using a single wire and still fit in at least one voice channel. The answer is that a copper wire provides more bandwidth than we need for voice and, over the years, engineers have learned how to use that extra bandwidth to deliver DSL and other services. Another way to look at this is that ten years ago cable operators offered 30 or 40 channels. Today, on the same cable in your house, they offer 150 channels, 5-10 Mbps of data, plus one or two voice calls. They have changed their back-end plant, but the cable in your house is exactly the same as it was ten years ago. It now has twenty times the capacity because it already had that bandwidth capability, we just didn’t have the technology to use it.

So you might say that today 1 MHz of spectrum has more capacity than ten years ago and you would be correct. However, there is a theoretical limit to the amount of data that can be crammed into 1 MHz of spectrum and it is a lot less than can be pushed through a coax cable. In order to duplicate the capacity of a single coaxial cable using 4G technology, we would need more than 1.5 GHz of spectrum[1].

Wire and cable also have finite bandwidth limitations, but we can think of this as every cable and wire having its own spectrum assigned to it, and two cables or wires next to each other can reuse the same spectrum. Spectrum that is confined in a container such as a cable or a wire can be used over and over again, but wireless signal reuse is limited. If you put six TV cables in the same room, you could connect them to six different TV sets and watch six different TV shows. If you tried to put six access points in that same room, all operating in the same portion of spectrum, chances are pretty good that none of them would work.

Just as there is a time and place for different types of wireless services-Bluetooth for the last 30 feet, Wi-Fi for the last 300 feet, wide-area networks for the last mile-it should be recognized that broadband services don’t have to carry all of the voice and data services we want and need. It is more practical and less expensive today to use 2G and 3G services for voice and save 4G for high-speed data. We don’t need 4G to hold a voice conversation or to send a test message or tweet, but we do want 4G when we watch the latest video on YouTube, share a video with our friends, or move a file between our office and our handheld in only a few seconds.

We will have all of these technologies and more available to us for a long time. I would like to think that we are smart enough to understand that we don’t have to use the newest technology when it is overkill for what we are doing. The object of smart devices and smart networks, as I see it, is that the networks will have a variety of capabilities and the devices will select the best one at the time for what we want to accomplish. Broadband is one more tool-not the only tool we will ever need.

Andrew M. Seybold

See Archived Copy of this blog post for previous comments.

I bring this up because now looks like the right time to put together a Wireless 101 course for the many who don’t understand wireless at all, or who believe that wired and wireless systems have the same attributes so the same uses and rules should apply. Much of the debate about Net Neutrality, how many network operators should compete with each other, and how to solve first responder communications problems are being engaged in by people who are not educated about the differences between wired and wireless and do not understand that these differences call for different solutions.

If we put together such a course, I wonder whether we could get congressional staffers whose bosses will be making the decisions, and perhaps even FCC Commission staffers, to attend. I don’t think we could expect them to sit through a full 8-hour course, but it certainly would be possible to put together a half-day session that could be offered several times for scheduling convenience and perhaps even videotaped or streamed and stored on the Internet.

It would be great to have this type of course hosted both in Washington DC and in Silicon Valley. I keep hearing it said that Washington folks and wireless network operators need to come to Silicon Valley to understand where the real technology advances are being made. If more Silicon Valley types understood wireless, perhaps their technology advances could be better geared for both the wired and wireless worlds.

Three or four hours is not a lot of time in which to convey the nuances of wireless services-voice, text, MMS, and data services-but it is enough time to present a general overview so attendees will leave with an understanding of the complexities of the various technologies, the resources that need to be deployed for them to work, the issues with gaining approvals for deployments in various cities and counties, and the differences between the wired and wireless Internet. If nothing else, they should come away with an understanding that wired access to the Internet, and the Internet itself, is about DATA services exclusively (VoIP is data), while wireless networks are about many different forms of communications in addition to data, INCLUDING access to the Internet.

One section I might include would be called “The Killer Applications” and it would make the point that the real killer application for the Internet is ACCESS, either wired or wireless, and that once we have access, everyone has a different killer application. To guarantee open and fair access to content or use of the Internet as a pipe to tunnel back to our corporate data services, these pipes must be managed at some level.

Though I can think of many more things I would like to include in this course, with real-life examples and perhaps discussions between those with different views, my goal would be simple. I would help educate those who will be making the decisions about how to handle issues surrounding wired and wireless, fiber and spectrum bandwidth, and fixed demand for services that can be pre-managed, to demand for services that can materialize anywhere on a wireless network at any time of day or night.

Congress and the FCC need to make some significant decisions over the next year or two. If their staff members have a better understanding of the differences between wired and wireless, they will be able to offer advice based on fact and data-which is what the FCC Chairman has said he wants-rather than on what is provided by influence peddlers who are only looking out for “their side.” In reality, there should be no sides in this debate. There should be a mutual understanding that wired and wireless systems make up our communications networks and both will continue to play an important role into the future. There should also be an understanding that wired and wireless systems are different and the differences need to be understood before rules are applied.

These are just a few thoughts about what I would like to do. Over the past 16 years, we have become known for rendering technology understandable to non-technologists. While these sessions would not be about making experts out of anyone, they would impart important knowledge about the differences in the types of resources available to each type of service provider and future decisions would be better informed.

Andrew M. Seybold

See Archived Copy of this blog post for previous comments.

All three of these early satellite mobile communications service providers faced similar challenges to their business model. Building and launching satellite networks for relatively small user groups proved financially difficult if not embarrassing since huge operating costs and high service fees limited customer acceptance except for the most challenging communications requirements. And in the cases of Iridium and Globalstar, this was their standalone model. Iridium went down in financial flames, even though it had cut back from its prelaunch 77 LEO (low earth orbiting) birds to 66 saying it could provide the same level of service with 15 percent less LEOs. Maybe it should have changed its name to Dysprosium, but that just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

This historical perspective leads us to a recent meeting I had at CTIA’s Wireless I.T. & Entertainment conference and exposition in San Diego where I was introduced to the latest satellite phone concept. It is amazing to see how far technology has come since the first mobile satellite phone. A joint effort between AT&T Wireless and TerreStar has resulted in a mobile satellite phone that looks like a modern smartphone. It is sleek, comfortable in the hand, well designed for one-handed or two-handed typing and most notably is missing the ubiquitous antenna that has come to be accepted on prior devices with satellite functionality.

AT&T will act as the distribution channel while TerreStar is responsible for building and launching the satellite that will provide service across the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands as well as the coastal waters offshore. Users will have fully functional 3G mobile service for typical communications needs within the existing wireless coverage areas and may opt to switch to the satellite service when they leave those areas. AT&T and TerreStar envision the device as filling the communications needs of enterprise customers who are traveling through poorly covered regions-e.g., long haul truckers. They also are looking toward the first responder market as a backup communications system if and when the terrestrial network becomes unserviceable due to natural disaster or other causes.

The “bird” is being flown from two control centers, one in the United States and the other in Canada, providing for operational redundancy. Built by Loral and launched by Arianespace, it provides 20 MHz of spectrum in the 2 GHz range. With testing currently taking place, AT&T and TerreStar expect the satellite service to become available during Q4 of this year.

Robert Chapin, Partner, Andrew Seybold, Inc.

See Archived Copy of this blog post for previous comments.

Some of you may know that last spring, for the first time, we added an element of competition to our Wireless University program with developers that had made it to the finals giving demonstrations of their mobile applications and the audience selecting the winner. This year we incorporated our MobileApp Challenge into the session that focused on content and added a caveat. We have been saying for many years that we should have smart applications for the wireless Internet, not more browser-based desktop-like applications. To emphasize this point, we only accepted entries that did not require users to invoke a browser, though a browser could be used by the application in the background.

Our four Finalists for this year’s event were ShoZu, Snac, Truphone, and Vringo. These applications were demonstrated in the afternoon and our attendees selected the winner. I was pleased with the entries we received; each of them has made our mobile devices more usable in one way or another (though we did have to suffer through some of the more mundane applications that always seem to pop up). It was difficult to choose the final four, but we managed to narrow them down.

Two of the applications provided solutions to similar problems. By providing a different user interface, they enable users to quickly and easily aggregate, view, and access multiple social networking sites and other sites. They both help users multitask by enabling them to see with a glance at their mobile device what is new in each of several categories of their choice and to be able to rapidly move between them.

The first was ShoZu’s BlackBerry Client, which is available today. It enables users to send and share images over 50 different social media sites including blogs, news sites, photo storage sites, and most web 2.0 sites. The client displays all of the selected sites so users can see what is new and read and reply to comments in real time across a wide variety of social networking venues. ShoZu’s application currently supports the BlackBerry (and very well, I might add).

Next was the other application developed to provide faster and easier access to content. Snac provides an interface that enables users to display Twitter, Facebook, Gmail, Flickr, news, sports, weather, and email. Snac’s “dashboard” displays icons for all of the selected services and indicates how many messages are waiting unread for each. Snac claims to support more than 300 different phones from low-cost devices through feature phones and all of the smartphones currently on the market. The application is free, and Snac develops customized versions to enable companies to connect with their mobile consumers on a more frequent basis.

A totally different type of application was demonstrated by Truphone. Truphone 2.0 was created for the iPod Touch with Wi-Fi. This application turns the iPod Touch into a mobile phone when it is in range and connected to a Wi-Fi access point (the iPod Touch was not designed to be a phone). On top of simple voice communications, Truphone 2.0 offers low-cost calling and instant messaging capabilities. This version of the product has enhanced features for more communications and capabilities, and better account management.

The last presenter was Vringo with its version 2.0 enhanced ringtone service. Vringo 2.0 goes far beyond typical ringtone services by enabling customers to create their own video ringtones or modify Vringo’s video ringtones and send them along with their call. Recipients hear and see the sender’s ringtone video, not the one they preprogrammed into their phone. It is fun and easy to build video ringtones for your own phone or to send along with your call.

Now on to the winner, who won a ride in an aerobatics airplane piloted by Rory Moore who is President of CommNexus San Diego, a non-profit industry association. Rory is one of the top-ranked aerobatic pilots in the world. Once feet are firmly planted back on the ground, the company and its application will be entered in our yearly program for our Choice Awards that are presented at our annual Wireless Dinner the first night of CTIA Wireless in Las Vegas. The company will receive three invitations to this exclusive invitation-only dinner, and since 2010 will be our 20^th anniversary, it should be a very special event.

Congratulations to all of the Finalists, and especially to Snac, Inc., the 2009 MobileApp Challenge Winner.

Andrew Seybold

See Archived Copy of this blog post for previous comments.