Further, in many major metro areas, some of this white space is already being used for land mobile radio systems such as fire and police, and other portions are being used for wireless microphones, although the FCC has ordered that all of these be turned off by this past June. Practically speaking, many wireless microphones are used by small organizations and others who don’t even know what portion of the spectrum their mics are working in and have probably not even read the FCC mandate. But what this basically means is that in the top 20+ U.S. markets there is limited available spectrum for high-power TV White Space use, though there is available spectrum for low-power use for mobile TV White Space devices. There is plentiful high-power and low-power spectrum in the smaller urban areas, and of course, in rural America.

White space spectrum, where available, is located from TV channels 2 through 51, and the rules mandate two different power levels for operation depending on the portion of the spectrum and how many channels of white space are available (each TV channel occupies 6 MHz of spectrum). Generally speaking, it takes 3 unused sequential channels to be able to use high-power systems. The power limits and the fact that these frequencies are lower in the RF spectrum band than our existing Wi-Fi unlicensed allocations means that TV White Space systems can be used over longer distances than Wi-Fi (2-3 miles per cell site and even farther in point-to-point applications). The cost of the devices is expected to be on a par with today’s Wi-Fi devices, and it appears as though the air link will be 802.11 (the Wi-Fi standard), which will enable Wi-Fi vendors to build these devices and introduce them into the market quickly.

White space systems will NOT be mobile in nature, that is, they won’t compete with wide-area broadband systems for true mobility. They will be more like Wi-Fi that is nomadic in nature, providing broadband services to fixed and portable devices. Data speeds will be in the multi-megabit per system range and there will be many different types of systems (see below).

The FCC is trying to finalize the rules for TV White Space and one of the requirements is that the systems be smart enough to be able to operate on empty TV channels and that the devices or the network that controls the devices is smart enough to know which channels are available in any given area. To this end, there are two different approaches being taken by those deploying experimental systems.

One proposed method of tracking what channels may be used in a given area is to build “smarts” into each device or, in today’s parlance, to provide cognitive radios that can scan the spectrum and find the open channels on which to operate. The competing method of determining the proper channels is to employ master databases that are populated with all of the needed information and do not, therefore, require the same level of smarts in each radio. Systems using both types of technology have been deployed, but in our estimation, there are more advantages to the second system using intelligent databases.

The first advantage for consumers is that the cost of the devices will be lower since systems that are deployed using intelligent database technology will not require that each radio be truly “smart.” The second is that those that want to build wireless ISP systems to offer broadband to areas where there is no broadband available today can build these systems and subscribe to the database service to ensure that their systems will meet the FCC’s requirements to not cause interference to TV receivers. There are a number of companies that have or are in the process of deploying systems using both of these technologies and this will enable the FCC to find out if one or both of these methods of interference control is suitable for the systems.

TV White Space systems will be relatively inexpensive and can be used for a number of different forms of broadband communications. They can be built where there is no real return on investment for wide-area wireless networks and where distance rules out the use of Wi-Fi access points. (Wi-Fi muni networks were all the rage a few years ago, but most have gone dark because of ongoing interference issues and because they turned out not to be economical to build and maintain.)

We will see TV White Space systems deployed to provide point-to-point broadband services for video cameras, machine-to-machine devices, and broadband to the home and office. We believe that most of the white space systems developed for broadband to the home will end up being a mixture of white space to the home or office, received by a device that will translate the white space signal into Wi-Fi, which will provide access into the buildings. Some within the TV White Space community believe that white space wireless modems will be built into notebooks and even smartphones over time, but the first deployments will be designed to take advantage of the fact that Wi-Fi is already embedded into most computing and wireless devices.

White space systems will also be used as true last-mile or last-several-mile systems in order to extend broadband coverage where it has been too expensive to deploy. For example, a town that sits a couple of miles from a major highway and has no access to broadband might find that since there is fiber along the highway, a white space point-to-point system can be used to complete the link between the town and the fiber, and then distribute signals within the town using a combination of white space and Wi-Fi technology.

Because this spectrum is available as unlicensed spectrum, there is no cost involved in obtaining the spectrum for use, and if the equipment costs are as reasonable as they appear they will be, the availability of this spectrum could mean a rebirth of local wireless Internet providers as well as the ability for cameras and other devices to be deployed where it had not been economically feasible. One interesting use of TV White Space systems might be on a university campus to provide additional camera feeds, and to provide broadband to each building on campus without the need or expense of running wires or fiber to each building.

TV White Space opportunities will be plentiful in many portions of the country where economics of broadband deployment have not worked before, but not in the top 50 or so metro areas. One advantage for wireless ISPs is that in many cases they won’t have to compete with three or more existing broadband services providers, and while the total available market might be smaller than in metro areas, with less competition, the return on investment could prove sizable.

There is another aspect to the deployment of TV White Space systems that could have a positive impact on the way we manage other spectrum resources. As you know, spectrum is a finite resource and while new technologies are helping us use it more efficiently, the technology being developed for TV White Space systems—intelligent networks with database technology—can be used for other portions of spectrum, perhaps even licensed spectrum, to assist those who need to be able to share spectrum with others and minimize interference issues.

I believe TV White Space, while unlicensed, is a perfect example of a way to test out new spectrum management technologies beyond the lab and out in the real world to make sure it works the way it should, to improve it, and to demonstrate it could be used effectively not only for white space applications, but for other types of spectrum management as well. I have felt for many years that we need to have more flexibility to test new technologies for wireless in real-world situations before deploying them into systems where if they don’t work correctly they could do more harm than good.

TV White Space is an interesting area to watch. It not only offers opportunities to provide broadband access where we have not had it before, it also has the potential to bring new and proven tools to other portions of the spectrum moving forward.

Andrew M. Seybold

Downloadable PDF of white paper: Intelligent Spectrum Management White Paper

LightSquared was conceived and founded by Philip Falcone, founder and CEO of Harbinger Capital Partners, and it bought SkyTerra Communications, Inc., which provides satellite GSM service in conjunction with AT&T Wireless. It has kept a constant stream of press releases coming including the latest about a $7 billion deal with Nokia-Siemans to build out the network. The object of LightSquared is to provide a wholesale-only network for use by virtually anyone who wants to resell LTE services.

The network, which will provide satellite only, terrestrial only, or a combination of the two services for resellers will consist of up to 40,000 cell sites plus two satellites and it is being designed to cover 92% of the U.S. population by 2015. The first thing that is evident about this new company is that it is an expert at marketing hype. According to its press releases, this network will be the first LTE wholesale network to be built and will be the “first truly open and net neutral wireless network spurring the development of new wireless devices, applications, and services,” and for the U.S. Government crowd, “LightSquared network build-out is anticipated to generate more than 100,000 direct and indirect private sector jobs within five years.”

After reading the massive number of press releases, and statements from Falcone, we find that LightSquared has partnered with “telecommunications visionary Sanjiv Ahuja, who will lead the LightSquared team as chairman and chief executive officer. Ahuja brings a successful track record to the new company and will lead the development and nationwide rollout of its network. Ahuja was chief executive officer of the global telecom giant Orange Group from 2004 through 2007, during which Orange’s customer base grew from 48 million to more than 100 million subscribers globally.” You might come away thinking that this is the best thing to happen to the U.S. wireless broadband landscape and that it will put pressure on existing network operators while at the same time enabling those not yet in the wireless business to offer their own wireless broadband services by reselling the LightSquared network.

Behind all of the hype, there are some realities I have not yet seen addressed. First, it is not possible to build a nationwide network of 40,000 cell sites, let alone incorporate two satellites, for anywhere near $7 billion dollars. The price tag will more likely be in the $20 to $30 billion range. Next is its spectrum holdings. LightSquared press releases make a big deal about owning 59 MHz of spectrum but don’t mention the fact that only 13 MHz will be available for terrestrial services. The company says it intends to deploy LTE in 5X5 MHz increments, and since it only has 8 MHz of spectrum at 1.4 GHz and 5 MHz at 1.6 GHz, it appears as though its entire terrestrial network will consist of one 5X5 LTE network, hardly enough to support a sufficient number of customers to pay for the investment. This also means its LTE devices will be one-off devices and will probably cost more to build than comparable 700-MHz devices.

The satellite portion of the system is also problematic. Satellite data speeds, even using LTE, will be much slower, network latency will be higher (meaning for example that SSL encryption for banking services may or may not work), and, of course, there will be little if any satellite coverage within major metro areas and certainly none inside buildings. I also question the number of cell sites being planned; 40,000 seems like a convenient number since it puts LightSquared into the ballpark with AT&T and Verizon with their number of sites in operation today, but I wonder how much coverage and capacity the terrestrial part of the network will really have.

When I projected the 10-year price tag for build-out of the MTZ network a few years ago, I came up with a total of more than $40 billion. If this network is built, I believe its true 10-year costs will be equal to or greater than that number. With only 13 MHz of spectrum, which translates to a single 5X5 MHz terrestrial network, LightSquared cannot possibly make a decent return on this investment. In my estimation, the end game here is to create lots of hype and sell the spectrum to someone else who buys into the idea of providing a wholesale network and will pay a premium for the spectrum since it is a finite resource.

In the meantime, I would suggest to Mr. Falcone that he contact Allen Salmasi of NextWave fame and have a chat with him over lunch. It would probably be an enlightening discussion. Or perhaps he should talk to Craig McCaw whose Clearwire is still bleeding money. Both of these men are visionaries when it comes to wireless and in their past lives they were responsible for changing the wireless landscape, but in the past few years it seems their latest companies have not fared as well. It is tough to compete with wire and cable that is already in the ground, cell sites that are already built and operating, and operators that already have millions and millions of customers. It is also difficult to compete with companies that still pay for their basic costs with income from voice services when LTE voice services are still years away from reality.

Hype may impress Wall Street, but it is much more difficult to impress Main Street! My prediction is that the LightSquared network will not see the light of day but that its spectrum assets and other contracts in place will be sold for a decent return on investment and someone else will emerge to start the hype cycle all over again. Meanwhile, the FCC will “find” and auction 300 MHz of additional broadband spectrum within the next 5 years and others will sit down at the auction table with their own visions of dollars dancing in their heads. Instead of opening spreadsheets and working the numbers, they will write checks to the feds for billions of dollars as they chase the wireless rainbow.

Andrew M. Seybold

This service is provided by News Patterns, which will soon be launching a version to track the wireless applications marketplace on a subscription basis and will include my analysis of important changes. We will also be launching another version that will focus on the Public Safety Communications industry and will be free through our website. I have been interacting with these services for a few months now and once you understand the technology behind the product, you soon come to appreciate the power of this system.

Reviewing today’s radar screen, the first thing you will notice is that the system captured more than 10,000 articles about wireless applications and added them to the running totals for the various categories. Those shown in the center of the radar screen are the ones with the most articles, blogs, and other posts. As you can see from the screen shot below, and to no one’s surprise, these articles deal with Google Wireless, Android applications, Apple applications, and the iPhone. But simply seeing what is listed in the center of the radar screen is not the true value of this tool. If you watched this over time, you would have noticed that the email category has been moving away from RIM and more toward the center, meaning that email delivery on devices is a mainstream application and no longer the sole purview of RIM, which built its company on providing the first, and best, email service to wireless devices.

You would also have noticed that the BlackBerry apps and LBS (location-based services) folders are moving toward RIM. The BlackBerry apps movement is based on recent improvements to the app store while the movement of LBS toward RIM means it is taking a leadership role in that category of applications. Nokia and Nokia applications are further out on the screen, which can be interpreted to mean that their ability to remain a strong competitor in the United States has not yet been re-established.

If you had this radar screen up on your computer and clicked on one of the tools on the right-hand side, you would see lines that indicate relationships between the folders. The stronger the line appears, the more of a relationship there is. For example, when I invoke this feature, it becomes clear that Nokia is tied to games but not to music or other entertainment applications, and that there is a strong tie between location-based applications and Apple applications. Another button brings up a list of the top BUZZ articles for today and yesterday and shows in graphic form what people are writing and blogging about.

There are a number of other tools, including ones that put the radar screen in motion so you can watch how the various categories interact over the past few days, a week, a month, six months, or a year. There is a visual representation on the screen and the catagories move around the radar screens. New categories are born and others move toward the outside of the screen and at some point, unless the company figures out how in increase its relevance, the category simply falls off the radar, so to speak.

The logic behind this system, which has been developed over the years, works for many other categories as well. News Patterns is being used to track elections in various states and has been very successful in predicting winners. It has been used by a number of government agencies for various types of information analysis, and Netro City, the company behind the News Intelligence service, has developed some special applications that can be used to track blog and other social site traffic that can operate as an early warning system for unlawful gatherings and other events that might otherwise have caught public officials off-guard.

As you can see, this is a very powerful system, and we are pleased to be able to offer this service, along with my take on the results shown by the Daily News Intelligence, on a subscription basis. We are in the process of organizing a beta test and if you think you might be interested in taking part, we will be happy to set up a webinar session to explain the power of this service to you in more detail. You can send me an email or use the Contact Us feature on this site to request more information.

News Patterns has become one of the most powerful tools I have access to, and I am always amazed at how accurate it is in predicting movement in our fast-paced world of wireless.

Andrew M. Seybold

You can blame this on data hogs—that 3-4% of the wireless broadband population that accounts for nearly 50% of all wireless broadband usage—but it is also because wireless bandwidth is shared bandwidth. Unless it is well managed, data hogs end up with most of the bandwidth and the rest of us with very little. Data usage has increased more than 5,000% over the last two years and there is no sign of a let-up. A large percentage of wireless broadband traffic (some say up to 40%) is video, which is increasingly popular and requires a lot of bandwidth.

On a wireless network, bandwidth is measured on a cell site or cell sector basis. Typical cell sites are built to serve three 120-degree areas. Each of these areas is referred to as a sector and the total bandwidth available within each sector is dependent on the technology used (2.5G, 3G, and now 4G), the amount of spectrum available for that cell sector, and the amount of backhaul capacity to transport the data to and from the cell site to the network core. But other factors affect total data speeds available, including how far the device is from the cell tower. The further away, out toward what is called the cell edge, the less data speed there is available.

There are a number of ways to manage the available bandwidth within a cell sector. In early systems, each customer had full access to all of the bandwidth in a given sector. With the newer systems, customers can be assigned a peak allowable data speed which, in essence, is a way to cap their data usage since less data can be downloaded per minute at 1 Mbps than at 5 Mbps. In addition to employing newer technologies to increase data speeds and capacities, network operators are also using new antenna technologies that “aim” the signal toward a specific user, or by using two or more antennas (MIMO), they gain some additional capacity and increase the available speed at the edge of the cell.

The bottom line is that while the new technologies, new antenna types, and things such as data compression can increase the total available bandwidth in a given cell sector, the demand for data services is growing faster than what the technology can provide. The trick, then, is to use all of the technology tools that are available along with management tools including pricing. If we look at the cell sector as a service area and if everyone has an unlimited data plan, the more people who enter that sector and request service, the slower the system will be for everyone. Generally, if everyone who is using broadband data within a cell sector is taking care of email and surfing the web, the resultant speed reductions won’t be very noticeable. However, if several of the users are receiving and/or sending large amounts of data or video, the speed decreases will be noticeable to everyone.

Managing wireless bandwidth is part science and part art. A network operator’s goal is to provide as uniform a user experience as possible to all of its customers and to be able to serve as many customers as possible most of the time. We all have heard the stories about AT&T’s network and its reportedly poor 3G service in major metro areas because of the high demand placed on the network by iPhone customers who have become heavy data users. There are only a few ways to increase the capacity of a network: You can add more spectrum at each site, if there is some spectrum available; you can build more sites, which typically takes several years of planning, permitting, and building, so this is not an overnight fix; you can start using femtocells that are similar to Wi-Fi access points but are for wide-area networks to improve in-building coverage; and you can move users off the wide-area network (or Wi-Fi as T-Mobile does); and, of course, work toward off-loading the network by providing Wi-Fi service in certain areas as AT&T is doing in Times Square in New York.

But even with all of these options, there will still be data abusers who are only concerned about their own ability to use as much data as they want and don’t care if they are having an impact on other users on the network. This attitude is interesting since when they are operating in a wired environment and pay for unlimited data access, they are limited by the speed they pay for. Typical DSL and cable providers charge different amounts for different speed levels, which equates to the amount of data available to a user in a given period of time. Cable modem service is also a shared service, like wireless. The more customers that use cable broadband in a given area, the slower the data rate for all of the customers—but not to the extent that access is totally denied to anyone. With wireless, it is possible that the last ones into a cell sector won’t have service.

The final method for managing bandwidth and capacity usage is what we are seeing from network operators today. They are doing away with all-you-can-eat data plans in favor of plans based on usage. One network, Clear/Sprint, recently stated that it will not move away from its all-you-can-eat pricing at the moment, which is understandable since it has more spectrum than the other operators AND it doesn’t begin to have the customer base or number of devices being serviced by the other operators. In fact, Sprint just launched its first 3G/4G smartphone within the past few weeks.

Pricing is moving toward data usage models and typical plans are for 250 MB or 5 GB of data. They are still based on a flat rate up to the maximum allowed and then an overage price kicks in. When LTE is launched, there will probably be other pricing models as well. LTE enables operators to use what is called “quality of service” (QoS), which means data speeds can be varied based on usage. For example, we might see pricing based on 2 Mbps service, 5 Mbps service, or for those who want the best, say 10 Mbps service. The rate you pay will depend on the data speed you choose, much more like the wired and cable models we are accustomed to. However, I also expect to see monthly caps on data amounts and perhaps another pricing step that would be invoked for large file downloads that might work something like this: If you want to download 20 MB of data at 2 p.m. in the afternoon, you might have to pay an extra $5 for that download, but if you defer the download until 2 a.m. when network loading is much lighter, the download would be free.

The idea of Net Neutrality flies in the face of network management by the operators. In the strict sense of the term, Net Neutrality would require the operators to provide the same level of service to everyone, which would allow data hogs to continue to limit access to broadband data services for the rest of us. At the end of the day, it is important that those using broadband services who are not conversant with the differences between wired and wireless access come to realize that wireless, regardless of the technology, is shared bandwidth and, more importantly, it is shared within cell site sectors.

All of us want the fastest possible access to broadband services and we all want to be able to use these services no matter where we are. In order to do that, we must understand that network operators have to be able to manage their networks efficiently and with an even hand. New build-outs and technology help, but they need other tools to make sure there is bandwidth available for as many customers as possible. Regulating usage through pricing is the only other tool network operators have to help them continue to provide us with the services we have come to expect.

Andrew M. Seybold

One of the great things about competition is that network operators can make choices based on their own perceptions of the two technologies, their customer base, existing demand for data, and their projections for increased broadband usage over time.  The decision also needs to be based on the amount of spectrum available to be dedicated to HSPA+ or LTE. LTE can operate in bandwidths of 1.4, 3, 5, 10, or 20 MHz while HSPA+ is designed to be deployed in 5 MHz of spectrum.

A core battle raging between the two technologies concerns the often-inflated claims about data speeds and capacities in a given amount of spectrum. HSPA+ specifications state that data rates up to 56 Mbps down and 22 Mbps up are possible using MIMO (dual antenna) systems. LTE claims data rates of 43 Mbps down to devices in 5 MHz of spectrum and 29 Mbps for an uplink. However, all of these data rates are theoretical in nature. To put this in perspective, T-Mobile USA is promoting its HSPA+ data rates as follows: “Typical real-world downlink and uplink speeds experienced by customers with upgraded 3G will be less than the theoretical peak and will vary based on a number of factors, including location, device, and overall traffic on the local wireless network at a given time.”

In some of its advertisements, T-Mobile states that “typical” data rates will exceed 7.5 Mbps down and 2-3 Mbps up to the network. We really don’t have an LTE comparison at this point since the Verizon network is being built using 10X10 MHz of spectrum and AT&T, which will be using 5X5, has not provided any real-world numbers. However, it is expected that LTE data rates in 5 MHz of spectrum (5X5) will be about the same or a little faster with LTE networks.

One sticking point for engineers is determining in what amount of spectrum LTE will have an advantage over HSPA+. Some claim that this advantage will be seen at 5 MHz while others claim that it will only be noticeable on systems with 10 MHz of spectrum dedicated to LTE. Whatever the case, we are looking at data rates considerably higher than those we are seeing on standard 3G systems, but not anywhere near their theoretical peak rates.

Remember also that regardless of which technology is deployed, data rates are shared data rates. If you are the only data user in a cell sector, all of the speed and capacity are available to you. However, if you are in a cell sector with a number of users, the data rate you experience will depend on the types of data being accessed by the other customers. If several are downloading streaming video, you will notice a difference in both the data speed and the capacity available to you. If all of the users in the cell sector are sending and receiving email or only surfing the web, the data speed will remain fairly high. Your data rate will also drop off as you move away from the center of the cell sector where there is better throughput.

When it comes to deploying LTE, the most aggressive networks are Verizon in the United States and NTT DoCoMo in Japan. In Europe, the migration to LTE will be slower with HSPA+ most likely being deployed first, followed by LTE in hot zones, or areas where demand for data is greatest. Verizon has chosen to aggressively build out its entire nationwide footprint, but it is not clear if AT&T will follow Verizon or start out with LTE only where data demand is highest. 

Data rates for WiMAX, as published by Clearwire, are less than for either HSPA+ or LTE, and there are many rumors that Clearwire will move to LTE over time. One Russian WiMAX operator has already decided to move to LTE for future networks, which makes sense with respect to the size of the LTE market in the next few years. With more LTE systems being built, demand for networks and devices will be higher, thus driving down the cost of LTE implementation and devices faster than WiMAX based on volume.

Regardless of which wireless broadband technology your favorite network is building out over the next two years, the result will be higher data rates in both directions. Even so, we will still see inflated data speeds appear in press releases and statements from the infrastructure companies and network operators (with some exceptions), which could cause customers to be disappointed in the data speeds they actually experience over commercial networks. Once we have both HSPA+ and LTE networks in place and a number of devices for them, we will have a much better idea of the actual data speeds that will be obtainable on a regular basis. In both cases, we will have access to more speed and more capacity.

For the foreseeable future, HSPA+ and LTE devices will be capable of falling back to 3G networks where HSPA+ or LTE has not yet been installed. In some cases, these devices will also provide fallback to 2.5+G data speeds in the more rural areas. So while the battle between HSPA+ and LTE continues to rage on within the wireless marketplace, the customers, who don’t care what the faster technology is called, will benefit from faster speeds and more capacity.

Wireless broadband data usage is growing at a dramatic pace. It will continue to grow and demand could impact the performance of these networks from the beginning. If most customers are convinced by the industry that the wireless Internet is exactly like the wired Internet, and that it can be used the same way, data congestion will become a problem sooner rather than later. This is one reason the FCC in the United States and other governmental agencies in other parts of the world are trying to “find” additional spectrum to allocate for wireless broadband services. There are only a few ways to increase capacity. One is to make more spectrum available at existing cell sites, another is to build additional cell sites closer together, and yet another is to employ in-building femtocells and/or Wifi to improve in-building coverage and to move in-building users off the wide-area network while still providing them with access to all of the network features and functions.

No matter the technology, the same methods for increasing capacity apply equally. The FCC is trying to free up more spectrum, network providers are always building out new sites, and many believe that the combination of femtocells and Wifi will go a long way toward helping with capacity issues. I believe capacity across the networks can also be managed by offering different pricing models. I thought we would see different pricing models based on usage (which we have), based on uplink and downlink speeds (as with today’s DSL and cable services), and based on time of day (midnight to 5 a.m. being the least expensive).

However, T-Mobile just began offering aggressive pricing models that reduce the price of data to $40 per month for 5 GB of data, and $25 for 250 MB. This will put additional pressure on the other wireless broadband providers and may even result in more demand for data services. This would impact network operators’ profit margins, especially since the T-Mobile 5 GB per month plan has no overage charges and is essentially reverting to an all-you-can-eat pricing model. This will hinder network operators’ ability to manage the data flow over their networks to ensure that all customers have equal access to data services.

The FCC is trying to find a way to regulate broadband services and to pass rules that make it mandatory for network operators to allow access by all customers on the same basis. My hope is that these new rules will permit each network operator to manage its own wireless broadband usage and to ensure that each and every customer has equal access to higher-speed data services. This means there will have to be some way to limit data hogs that eat up a higher percentage of bandwidth than 95% of the other customers. It will require a delicate balance here to ensure fair and equitable access for all.

Faster data speeds are coming, or are here in some cases. They are not as fast as many in the industry would like us to believe, but they are a lot faster than anything we have been able to have previously. It won’t matter whether your network operator’s choice is HSPA+ or LTE for the next few years, the migration to LTE will take place over the next five years and as these networks are being built, later releases of the standard will add even more speed and capacity to the networks at very little additional cost to the operator.

Wireless broadband services are shared with other customers within the same cell sector, but having faster data speeds and increased capacity will benefit all of us, whichever technology is deployed and whichever network we subscribe to. Another bright spot is that all of today’s 2G and 3G spectrum can be converted to LTE over time if demand warrants it. If the FCC does manage to allocate 500 MHz of additional spectrum for wireless broadband, we should be able to keep up with the demand. As more video is sent and received over the wired Internet and then over the wireless Internet, the additional speed and capacity will help us get on and off the networks faster, freeing up the bandwidth for others.

The battle over moving toward with either HSPA+ or LTE will continue to be waged by network operators; that is what they do. They look for advantages to attract more customers and keep the ones they already have. The cost of providing wireless broadband will continue to come down as these more efficient technologies are deployed, and customers will benefit from the higher speeds. In the meantime, the industry needs to be more realistic in its claims about data speeds and capacity. Customers who know what to expect will be happier than customers who feel they were promised data speeds that cannot be delivered in the real world, no matter what technology is deployed.

Andrew M. Seybold

The only way to set up, upgrade, and backup the iPad is to plug the unit into a PC or Mac and use iTunes. Thus, the iPad is not a replacement for a desktop or a laptop.  Apple is building a huge data center in North Carolina that most believe will house an Internet “cloud” and I believe that someday the iTunes function will be transferred to the cloud. If that happens, the iPad could become a standalone device.

I really like the iPad but I am not sure how many others have the same needs as I do. So far, it seems that Apple is selling more than it expected here at home and has thus delayed international shipments. I do a lot of reading on the computer—not only email but a wide number of technical and general news websites. I have two large monitors so my desktop setup makes it easy to read a variety of sources, but I get tired of sitting in front of the desktop while I am reading, so the iPad provides a better experience for me.

Holding a paper-sized screen enhances my reading experience. The display is crisp and for some reason looks better than my desktop displays. I like being able to go into rooms other than my office to read and it is great to be able to sit outside and read from the iPad. The display will automatically brighten up in direct sunlight, but high reflectively makes it difficult to read. However, the slightest bit of shade makes it very readable. 

The iPad has a dock on the bottom of the home screen. The five apps you choose for the dock are displayed on each screen and you can navigate to additional screens by swiping your finger left or right. You can have up to eleven screens with twenty apps on each screen. I have one screen devoted to reading. On that screen I have the iBooks, Kindle, Fluent News (a free app that consolidates news from many sources), NY Times, Wall Street Journal, and Reuters News Pro applications. In addition to the apps, I have bookmarks for the local newspaper, the local radio station’s web news site, Apple Insider, Tidbits, TUAW, CNN, Time, ESPN, and Facebook. With the iPad (and iPhone), you to can go to a webpage and create a home screen bookmark. The bookmark then appears on the iPad screen like an app. You simply tap on it and the browser opens up to the page you bookmarked. For many sites that are optimized for the iPad, such as CNN, Time, and ESPN, the experience is similar to the dedicated iPad apps designed for reading news.

The iPad Safari web browser does a fantastic job of rendering pages for the iPad’s screen. It is definitely the best browser I have seen on a mobile device. As you have probably heard, the iPad does not support Adobe’s Flash. I haven’t found that to be an issue so far but if the websites I wanted to read heavily used Flash, it might be a problem. It is interesting that many major sites have abandoned Flash because of the lack of support for the iPhone and iPad.

Apple’s email app is great. When holding the iPad in the landscape orientation, a summary of emails is on the left side and the selected email is displayed on the right like with Outlook’s viewer. The email app supports Microsoft Exchange, POP3, IMAP, and Web email for Apple’s Mobile Me, Gmail, Yahoo mail, and AOL. I set up all of these except AOL and found the experience better than on the desktop. Why? Well, for example, my Yahoo mail on my desktop has to be read in the browser. On the iPad (and iPhone), Yahoo mail shows up in the mail app as with Exchange or POP3 mail. The Contacts and Calendar apps seamlessly integrate with Exchange, Mobile Me, Gmail, and Yahoo (I have only used Exchange and Mobile Me). When the announced iPad operating system upgrade is available later this year, you will be able to read all mailboxes in one common inbox.

I have used Pages (word processor) and Keynote (presentation app) and found both to be limited. I couldn’t open our Wireless University PowerPoint presentation of 268 slides so I split the slide deck into two presentations of about 130+ slides, then both presentations opened. But as Keynote warned me, some slides were modified by changing fonts and the build order. They looked pretty good but the changes resulted in some slides that would have to be changed to correct some of these issues. With Keynote as a standalone application, I could create a slick show for a sales team to present a product or service, for example. The limitation for me is that it falls short as a cross-platform presentation tool. Hopefully, future versions will better handle PowerPoint transfers.

Pages, the word processing application, seems good for basic word processing and has many nice features. However, I don’t believe I will be writing a long, formatted report on the iPad. It has a nice built-in dictionary and the spell checking is done as you type. But there is no grammar checking feature. Pages is probably okay for creating short documents and editing documents on the road.

I have also found that the iPad is not the greatest device on which to enter a lot of data, but when using the Apple Bluetooth keyboard, it works well for out-of -office use. Entering a lot of text with the full-size Bluetooth keyboard is easy, but since there is no mouse next to the keyboard, I need to touch the screen for other functions and activities. Reaching up to touch is not as convenient for me as using a mouse, though for email and writing drafts it works fine. (This is not the first product that has required users to move from a keyboard to a touch screen for cursor control, which has been known for years to be a problem.)

I would give both Pages and Keynote a thumbs down. I am not sure the iPad is the right type of device for these applications, and the current versions are not ready for primetime. Future versions of these apps will need to be better at cross-platform transfers and sharing if the iPad is to go beyond being a nice display for small meetings. Perhaps Microsoft will decide to build a set of Office applications for the iPad, but this is only speculation at the moment.

Even though general office apps are not ready, I believe there are a lot of opportunities for the iPad in many vertical enterprise situations. The medical industry is reportedly salivating over the iPad. The ability to display and fill in forms quickly and easily will make it attractive in vertical markets where this type of data input has become the norm.

The 10+ hour battery life is great (10+ hours with the display on playing a movie and Wi-Fi updating email). In normal use, my battery has never dropped below 60% after an entire day. Unlike a laptop, the iPad is on all of the time and that always-on experience is great.

Speaking of movies, the iPad is great for watching movies, reading books, and listening to music. The other evening I had to drive my daughter to volleyball practice. While she practiced, I chose one of the ten full-length movies I had loaded on my iPad and watched it in my car. Watching on a 9.7-inch display was a surprisingly good experience. I have an iPod interface to my car audio system so I plugged it into the iPad and enjoyed full range stereo. Headphones or the iPad’s internal speaker would be okay, but not nearly as good as the multi-speaker system in my car.

The iPad works great for me. I really like it as a device to consume news and information as well as a book reader and movie screen. I like the freedom of being able to go anywhere around the house to read or to watch movies while away from home. It doesn’t replace a desktop or laptop, but it should work well for me on most business trips. In short, it is the slickest mobile device I have ever seen.

I hope you enjoy yours!

Barney L. Dewey

———————————————————–

Comments from Andrew M. Seybold: Buying an iPad, or at Least Trying To

After reading about the iPad in the press and Barney’s comments above, we decided we might want to buy a couple of iPads for our own use. I, of course, want the 3G-enabled version with the full 64 GB of storage, and we decided Linda would be fine with the Wi-Fi-only version. Over the week-end we set out to try them hands-on and see what was available. At Best Buy, we tried the demo iPads that were set up and decided we had to have them, but found that there weren’t any in stock so we headed for the Apple Store in downtown Santa Barbara. Upon arriving, were told they had a 64 GB Wi-Fi-only device in stock, but after checking further, we were told they sold the last one that morning but more should be arriving during the week.

We were offered the option of using an in-store Macintosh to go to the same website we can access from home to order the iPads but we opted to order them from home. Back at home, I signed on to the Apple Store and set about ordering the two units and a few accessories. Once I was done, I reviewed the order, hit the place order button, was given an order number, and was informed that the Wi-Fi-only iPad would ship within 4-5 days and the 3G model would ship toward the end of April. All was well, or so I thought!

The next morning, I received an email from Apple at 7:40 a.m. acknowledging my order and then at 8:02 a.m. I got another email saying that sales quantities were being limited because of heavy demand and our order had been cancelled because we had exceeded the number of units available to a customer. I checked this and found that I was limited to ordering two iPads sent to the same address, which is what I had ordered. So I called the toll-free Apple helpline and after talking to its very cool electronic voice (complete with the sound of keyboard tapping every time I was asked a question) I was relegated to waiting for an agent to help me—18 minutes. I told him the problem and gave him the order number, and after about 10 minutes on the phone with him he concluded that the Apple Store had seen a previous order from me two days prior—I had only accessed the order process to check out the options available and had not actually entered an order. He suggested that I change the ship-to address to my work address, which I did, and gave him the credit card info a second time.

While he was in the middle of doing this, he informed me that the dock I had ordered on the previous order—the one that had been cancelled—would ship anyway since it was in stock and had been processed prior to the order being cancelled. I had a hard time figuring that out but accepted it as a glitch in the system. He completed the transaction, gave me a new order number, and told me that this time the order should be processed. He was very efficient and easy to work with, and I was pleased we had finally resolved the problem, or so I thought!

The next day, I received yet another email from Apple, again telling me that I had ordered more than my allotted two iPads and that my order had, yet again, been cancelled. I picked up the phone and called Apple’s toll-free number again and this time, after a 15-minute wait, I was helped by a woman who, upon hearing my story, told me that this was a common occurrence and the call right before mine had been from a woman who had ordered one iPad and asked to have it shipped to her workplace, which was a bank. Because others had also asked to have their iPads shipped to the bank, her order bounced and was cancelled.

She explained to me that she would send my order over to the order desk and within 48 hours I would know if it had been placed or not. When I asked what she meant, she told me she could not override the order desk and that the policy was to send the order back to the order desk for review to determine if I was entitled to have my order processed! Needless to say, I was not happy with this answer, but she patiently explained to me that was the best she could do.

So as I sit here writing this, I don’t know if the order desk folks will decide to process my order or not. I am at their mercy even though the reason for the cancellation the first time was an unplaced order that is hanging around in the online ordering system, and even though the second order had been taken by an Apple rep who assured me that since I had changed the ship-to address to an address that is different from my bill-to address, the order would be processed.

Meanwhile, FedEx just delivered the iPad dock that was part of the first order that was cancelled. Will I be allowed to spend my money and buy the iPads or will I be turned down again as an unfit buyer? Stay tuned!

Andrew M. Seybold

Over the past few years, Intel has been pushing, prodding, and feeding the WiMAX community in an effort to increase momentum and attract customers who will buy wireless devices powered by an Intel processor and maybe even including WiMAX. The reality is that no matter how much Intel pushes and how much money it spends, the WiMAX community has been observing the progress in the LTE community. Many who have been deeply involved in WiMAX are now talking about taking what they have learned by creating WiMAX chips, infrastructure, and devices into the LTE space.

At this point, WiMAX is a Time Division Duplex (TDD) technology while most cellular technologies are Frequency Division Duplex (FDD), but the WiMAX Forum says it is working on an FDD version of the specification. Meanwhile, 3GPP, the LTE standards body, is working on a TDD version of LTE known as TD-LTE that will be deployed in China and perhaps India, depending on the outcome of the next auction there. TD-LTE has also piqued the interest of WiMAX operators, including Clearwire (51% owned by Sprint), and while they have not said they will move to TD-LTE, in several presentations their execs have not ruled it out, either.

In fact, a short while ago, a group of companies including Clearwire asked the 3GPP standards body to step up its efforts on TD-LTE, and the Clearwire CEO has called for there to be one common standard in the future. Why is a standard needed? The primary reason is for cost savings to both network operators and customers. More devices being built for a single standard means the chips and all of the other components needed for cell sites and user devices can be produced in larger volume, which means lower prices. It really is more about economics than which technology is “better.” WiMAX purists and LTE purists will never agree on which technology is better or which is better suited for what portion of spectrum; the marketplace will decide based on system operation and the number and types of devices that will become available.

The WiMAX answer to all of this is to push hard to get WiMAX 2 through the IEEE standard procedure so it will have a standard that more closely resembles the capabilities of LTE. At the recent WiMAX Forum Congress held in Asia, the focus was clearly on getting the WiMAX 2 standard out the door sooner rather than later. The original time frame was for the standard to be completed by 2012 or even into 2013. Now the group is saying it will be ready in 2011, well before the TD-LTE specification is completed. Even so, many companies will jump the gun and build to the new standard while it is in process, knowing that most of the changes they will have to make to their products will be able to be made with software.

Another driving force to finish the WiMAX 2 standards is that many WiMAX operators are reporting very high data usage by their customers. Figures quoted in a recent Fierce Wireless article indicate that many operators are seeing monthly data usage as high as 10-13 GB. When Sprint’s Xohm launched in Baltimore, I was told that Sprint was courting high-data users (5-6 GB per month). Now Sprint and others are faced with per-person data consumption double that number. When you look at the amount of spectrum Clear and others have for their systems and hear that they are already complaining about data capacity issues, it makes you wonder if they will have to implement some type of data capacity management on their networks.

Data usage is climbing not only on WiMAX networks but on 3G networks and across the wired Internet as well. The FCC and the industry are fighting about net neutrality while data hogs that used to be the exception to the rule are becoming the rule as more and different types of data services are becoming available. Without exception, all of the networks will have to find better ways to manage data consumption.

I have to wonder how Clear and others will rank WiMAX m (the next generation) since they are already calling the current flavor 4G. Perhaps I should offer up my trademarked “InifiniG” name. (Paul Jacobs, Chairman and CEO of Qualcomm, actually coined the term and I greatly appreciate the fact that he has let me use it.)

I also wonder why some within both the LTE and WiMAX communities must continue to make outrageous claims about data speeds and capacities. In the early days of WiMAX, Intel had on its website that we would see 30 Mbps data speeds and cell sites could be built 30 miles apart at 2.5 GHz. Now that the systems are being built, sites are denser than 1.9 GHz sites and produce data speeds of 4-6 Mbps down and 1-2 Mbps up. You would think they would learn.

From my vantage point, it looks as though WiMAX-related companies are divided about which way to go. Some want to move toward TD-LTE and align themselves with the LTE world while others are pushing for a final standard for WiMAX m so they can take advantage of next-generation WiMAX technology. Meanwhile, it all comes down to numbers—the number of customers on a system that in turn generates the revenue for the network operators and device and application vendors. Numbers are the key to any technology’s success. WiMAX was rolled out before LTE, but the support for LTE around the world indicates that there will be more LTE devices available and lower costs for LTE infrastructure and devices.

Many network operators that have already deployed CDMA2000 1X EV-DO Rev A or UMTS/HSPA won’t have to do anything more than add antennas and plug in channel cards at their sites to add LTE. Some will have to do more, which will cost more, but LTE uses a new over-the-air technology (OFDMA) that is the same as WiMAX, which means incumbents in the 3G world will be able to roll out their LTE networks less expensively than building new WiMAX networks. Conversely, since companies such as Motorola build for both LTE and WiMAX, it is not a big leap to assume that those who own Motorola infrastructure on WiMAX will be able to simply plug in LTE cards to provide LTE services.

WiMAX m is being pushed by one group of WiMAX vendors and the conversion to LTE is being planned by others in the WiMAX camp. The WiMAX-forever camp is trying to leapfrog LTE, but part of their strategy is to paint a picture of data speeds and capacities that won’t be deployable anytime soon. One thing is clear. No matter which technology is deployed where, network management will play a major role in how much capacity is available at what speeds we as customers will experience with our next-generation devices and services.

Andrew M. Seybold

In recent weeks, it has become more evident than ever that the FCC is not paying much attention to those who do not agree with its current or proposed policies. Its National Broadband Plan has stirred up a lot of opposition from Congress and from those who employ wired and wireless technologies to serve their customers and must make a decent return on investment while doing so. Instead, it looks as though it is listening to those both inside and outside the government who have developed new clout within the executive and other branches of our government when it comes to policies.

The FCC commissioners are not technologists, and few if any of them truly understand the ramifications of finite bandwidth or what is possible today as opposed to what might be possible tomorrow. Not too many years ago, the commissioners would seek council from their own engineering groups and the bureau chiefs charged with looking after specific segments of the telecommunications sector. However, even the bureau chiefs now appear to be involved in politics, at least when one of their reports or proposed rulemakings is challenged. Going back through the FCC’s recent history, we can find many examples of when politics ended up being the deciding factor for rulemakings—who had the most clout and who was supporting which political organization the most. However, it appears as though this group of commissioners, with one or two exceptions, has totally caved in to the desires of those with the political clout.

This has resulted in decisions or recommendations to Congress that are not necessarily for the betterment of the telecommunications industry as a whole but are designed to, perhaps, punish some telecommunications players that have a different view of the industry than the outsiders’ view, which is, unfortunately, not based on reality. For example, the FCC appears bound and determined to auction the 700-MHz D Block instead of asking Congress to reassign it to the public safety community. The Commission seems to have been led to believe that it is vitally important to consumers to have one more nationwide wireless provider in the 700-MHz band providing LTE services to compete with the two giants.

Never mind that the ownership of the 700-MHz spectrum licenses on a region-by-region basis indicate that there will be a lot of competition on a local basis, and never mind that most of our nationwide wireless providers started out as regional players and acquired other companies over time to become nationwide. Sprint is the only network operator that started out as a nationwide player, and even then it entered into agreements with others to build out the network in areas of the nation where it did not want to build out its own system during the early years.

One of the reasons given for this recommendation to Congress is to help pay down the national debt. However, at the same time, the FCC is recommending that the broadband community work with the TV community and move stations to free up more spectrum for broadband usage—a move that would eliminate the possibility of raising any money from that spectrum. This type of inconsistency can be seen over and over again. The FCC seems to believe that we need more competition in all of our markets and that having more competition will drive down prices for consumers. The unspoken consensus here is that this belief is based on input from those who used to work for a large search engine company and now work in the executive branch of the government. Their previous employer wants to limit competition where it already does business but NOT where it sees new opportunities to drive its vision.

Many of those working for the FCC are dedicated professionals who have a problem with how things are turning out. However, many others have been turned into politicians, calling and writing to people and organizations that don’t agree with their findings or recommendations (including me), trying to convince them that the FCC broadband report, for example, should be approved as submitted. Or perhaps that the portion they worked on is being misunderstood so they have to defend their own recommendations—even recommendations that are based on their beliefs and not on data submitted to the FCC during the creation of the report.

I have to admit that I have a real problem with the FCC reaching out to those who have criticized the broadband plan or the public safety effort to have the D Block assigned to them, and now even net neutrality since the courts sided with Cox Communications. Cox is trying to manage its spectrum so all of its customers have the same right of access and this requires policing a few of its data hogs and limiting how much of the network they can dominate.

I have often expressed my view on how many competitors can survive in a given market. I don’t profess to know the answer but we are going to find out. On average, every major urban area today has 6-8 suppliers of broadband services, and in 5 years that number will grow to 10-12 or more local, regional, and nationwide telecommunications suppliers both wired and wireless. In my area, DSL costs have come down by 40% in the last 3 years and I am receiving better service than before. However, when I divide the total population of an area by the number of service providers in that area, I have to wonder if there will be a sufficient number of customers per provider to support a decent return on investment, especially when most service providers are spending $billions on system upgrades.

I also have to wonder if the wireless industry will end up like the airline business over time with too many new competitors, more rate wars, and then companies going out of business because they cannot sustain their profits. The first wired system built across the United States was built by a company (AT&T) that basically had a monopoly. It not only built a nationwide phone network, it built it with redundancy and back-up systems and the network was self-powered so when we lost power we still had use of our phone. The rates charged then and what we pay today are very different to be sure, and perhaps that is because of competition, but on the other hand, the companies building networks today cannot afford to build to such high standards of reliability.

I don’t believe politics should be permitted to play such a key role in determining our telecommunications direction. It is easy to find previous mistakes made by the FCC that were not fixed during its next incarnation, which made mistakes of its own. There does not seem to be any long-range planning involved in the day-to-day operation of the Commission. Instead, it appears as though it is only concerned with leaving its own mark on telecom and moving on, leaving the problems to the next batch of commissioners to undo or ignore.

Case in point, the last FCC passed a law providing TV White Space as additional spectrum for unlicensed use, but those who believe we need free or almost free access to the airwaves, and the current FCC, are recommending that the broadcast and broadband industries work together to expand broadband services over additional spectrum. When we look at the TV White Space that is actually available, we find that that there is none in the top 50 markets (including Google’s own backyard), but if we used what white space there is in those top 50 markets, we could move another group of TV stations further down the frequency chain and be able to use more of the spectrum for broadband services.

Or what about narrowbanding? Previously, the FCC passed the narrowband rules that require many land mobile operators (including police, fire, and EMS) to upgrade their voice systems to narrow channels. This was done to free up additional channels in dense urban areas. Now the new FCC believes broadband is our future and the need for narrowbanding is not nearly as important as it was. Yet it is sticking to its guns and not offering any relief to the agencies that cannot afford to replace their equipment. At the same time, the FCC is trying to encourage these agencies to also migrate their voice and data requirements to the 700-MHz band. It would make more sense to unravel the narrowband requirements and help them move to 700 MHz for voice and data services. Insisting they do both means a much slower migration to 700 MHz and higher costs.

There is a widespread lack of understanding about finite spectrum resources, competition, and network management (which the FCC is calling “net neutrality”). Add to this that the Commission is being told that all is well since a bunch of new technologies will forever solve our spectrum constraints and you have the makings of a regulatory agency turned political machine where everyone is a loser: telecommunications operators, those who use wireless to save lives and property, and consumers. It is time for the FCC to abide by its commitment to review the data and be driven by facts, not by what sounds like it might someday work. And it is time for the FCC to stop believing that one search engine company in California has THE vision for the telecommunications world.

Andrew M. Seybold

I read with interest your comments regarding the 24 MHz of public safety spectrum at 700 MHz and your belief that the spectrum set-aside for channelized communications should be converted to broadband spectrum. Apparently this is one of the reasons you seem to favor putting the D Block out to auction again.

I respectfully disagree with your assumption that the channelized portion of the 700-MHz spectrum would be of more value to the public safety community as broadband spectrum. Perhaps your staff and the FCC engineering staff have not properly conveyed to you the importance of channelized spectrum for first responders. If you will permit me, I would like to make several points that might help you understand the critical need for both broadband and channelized spectrum at 700 MHz.

Broadband systems require that each and every contact between two field units, or between a field unit and a fixed point, pass through a cell site. Channelized communications have unique capabilities that are not available with broadband systems today, nor will they be well into the future.

1)      Channelized communications for voice is one- to-many, which is a critical component of first responder communications. A dispatch that is verbally sent to units that are to respond is also received simultaneously by other units in the same area. It is vitally important for all units in a given area to hear what is happening so they can prepare to provide additional coverage or assistance. Think about your own cell phone. If you receive a call that affects you and your staff, you must, in some way, notify your staff. However, if the call had been sent over a channelized radio system being monitored by yourself and your staff, everyone would have received the message at the same time, reducing the time it takes to mobilize.

2)      One-to-many voice is also critical during each incident, no matter how small. The first unit on the scene normally provides a condition report that must be heard by the dispatcher, all of the responding units, and any other units in the area.

3)      Once on the scene of an incident, first responders switch to channels that do not interfere with the primary dispatch channels. During a bank robbery, for example, one channel is assigned to the swat team, one to the uniformed officers, another to EMS personnel, perhaps one or two more to the fire department, and still other channels to others on the scene. Control of the incident is handled by the Incident Commander who must listen to all of the channels and communicate with the dispatch center to coordinate all of the various groups on the scene. Once again, one-to-many communications is vital in these incidents and because the radio traffic is not on the main channel, it does not delay dispatch of other calls. This traffic does NOT go through a radio site—it is one radio directly to many radios. While the range is limited, these direct systems are necessary to provide all of the channels required during both normal and major incidents.

The fires in Southern California last year are a typical example of a major incident where channelized voice communications were used. The combination of first responder agencies on the scene and protecting areas just outside the fire area made use of 38 command radio channels and 172 individual radio channels. In many incidents such as this or a major fire in a high-rise building, for example, signals from radios carried by first responders cannot reach a radio tower (cell site) so they must be able to talk directly to other radios on the scene.

Broadband vs. Channelized Radio systems

No commercial wireless systems can provide the number of channels required during such incidents, and no commercial wireless systems can support communications on a direct one-to-many basis. Commercial systems and all generations of wireless require that every call be routed to and from a cell site. Further, because of their architecture, they cannot be re-engineered to provide direct communications. Moving first responder voice communications to commercial systems is not a solution.

Perhaps in ten years or more, if there is demand, channelized types of services can be designed into the next generation of devices and commercial networks, but it is doubtful that any commercial vendor would spend the time and money it would take to modify the commercial networks for a relatively few first responders. Today there are more than 290 million wireless customers using voice and data services on commercial networks and less than 4 million first responders. There is no financial incentive for commercial suppliers and operators to change their systems to provide the voice services needed by public safety agencies.

Other examples of one-to-many and direct voice communications can be found in Washington DC not far from your office. The Secret Service, for example, uses radio equipment that eliminates the need to go through a cell site and permits agents to talk among themselves in real time whether they are in the open or in the sub-basement of a building. Direct communications are critical and it is also critical that every member of the team be able to hear at the same time and know exactly what is occurring at any given moment. Today’s or tomorrow’s commercial networks cannot provide this level of communications, which is the same as what the first responder community requires.

Public safety needs interoperability for both broadband data and voice services. Today, first responders’ radio channels are spread out over many different portions of the spectrum. When the FCC granted the public safety community the spectrum in the 700-MHz band, some for voice and some for data services, it provided an opportunity to, over time, solve both types of interoperability issues.

Today, the 700-MHz spectrum is lightly used, but in much of the United States it was only made available this year after the HD transition. In areas where it was available earlier, it is being used and those charged with allocating this spectrum have been working with the FCC and the public safety community to establish frequency coordination for local, state, and regional interoperable communications systems. Funding is now the limiting factor for these projects. If funding were available, many departments would move more quickly to the 700-MHz channelized spectrum rather than pay to narrowband their existing radios between now and January 1, 2013.

I would like to suggest that you and perhaps members of your staff spend a Friday or Saturday night riding with police officers in Washington DC or your hometown. Talk to them about how important voice communications and one-to-many communications are to their job and their safety. Listen to the voice radio traffic that is generated on these nights and observe the officer as he or she changes channels for different incidents and talks to others who might be responding to the same incident, and see how many times they talk to each other in the field on other than the main dispatch channel.

It is not possible to provide the level of voice communications required by public safety within the confines of commercial wireless systems or using commercial wireless technologies. The 700-MHz channelized public safety channels are digital, which is a vast improvement over the analog systems on other public safety spectrum, and they work the same and provide the same types of services as analog systems. It can be difficult to understand how different channelized devices are from cell phones. They must be able to communicate directly with each other no matter where they are, and with those around them so everyone knows what is happening. A delay of only a few seconds can mean the loss of life or property.

Taking spectrum from public safety’s channelized band to expand their broadband network is not only counterproductive; it will exacerbate the interoperability issues.

Respectfully submitted,

Andrew M. Seybold

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