The question I am pondering is whether the newest versions of these products will be successful even though their predecessors failed, and if future success can be attributed to the availability of broadband wireless services more than any other factor, or if these newer products will fail in the present marketplace in spite of wireless broadband.

The following is a fairly extensive narrative intended to shed light on the answer to this question. If you take the time to read through it, I think you will find it both interesting and informative. For those who have been in the industry a long time, it will evoke a wealth of memories. Those newer to wireless are likely to find some unexpected surprises.

I am not talking ancient history here, I am talking about the past 25 years or so. Personal Computers were introduced in the late 1970s, or at least PCs that could be operated by people without programming knowledge. The first real PCs were developed by Apple with the Apple II in June 1977, and by Radio Shack with its TRS-80 series, Commodore, Osborne, and a few others. The big jump in the early PC market was when IBM announced its PC in August 1981. During this era, we also saw the advent of transportable PCs, which were self-contained boxes that included small monitors and power supplies, including the Osborne I, the Kaypro, and then in January 1983, the first Compaq transportable.

The first notebook computers found their way onto the scene led by Grid and Data General in the summer and fall of 1984 with the first “clamshell” design notebooks. The DG/One personal system weighed in at 9 pounds with an 80C88 processor at 4 MHz, and it sported a 25 line by 80 column liquid crystal display. It had 128K of RAM, a single 3.5-inch disk drive, and not much else. This machine was a failure in the marketplace because it was designed primarily to entice existing Data General customers to buy it and use it to communicate with Data General proprietary applications. The Grid device was based on MS-DOS but was too expensive for the marketplace.

Then in the late 1980s and into the early 1990s, companies began work on handheld computers. The first of these was the Poqet PC, which was, by today’s standards, actually a sub-notebook or a netbook. It ran a full version of MS-DOS, was powered by AA batteries for hours, and ran many of the day’s business applications. The Poqet PC weighed in at only 1 pound, had 640 KB of RAM and two RAM/ROM drives, and sold for less than $2,000. This entry was quickly followed by the Atari Portfolio, Sharp Wizard, Casio Boss, Psion Executive, and finally the HP palmtop series of handhelds, the first partially successful handheld offering. It is estimated that HP sold about a million of these devices.

In 1987, Linus Technologies introduced the first tablet computer. It included handwriting recognition but no graphics, and it was the frontrunner of the tablet market. Pen and tablet computers then began appearing in the market in droves, first from Grid (the Grid Pad) and then several other companies, and some were supported by Microsoft’s pen-based extensions to Windows.  

Also in 1987, John Sculley, then CEO at Apple, stepped onto the stage and presented a view of a new device and series of technologies. The video clip of this presentation about the Knowledge Navigator can be found on YouTube. It is worth watching, if for no other reason than because it is a piece of history. The Knowledge Navigator was conjured up by smart Apple types and, according to Sculley, it could have been built in the 1990s.

During the early 1990s we also saw the birth of wireless email when RadioMail, funded by Motorola, entered the market in 1991 with its service. The hot mobile item of the day, it was made up of a small leather case that contained an HP 95LX handheld and a wireless modem (about the same size –the Viking Express) that was built for the RAM Mobile Data network by Ericsson. This was also a time when the paging companies, spurred by new advances in paging technology from Motorola, were rolling out text-based messaging devices and then two-way pager devices that could receive messages and then respond to them in near-real time. Later in the same decade, Research In Motion developed its own two-way pager and then took a major leap forward with the development of the BlackBerry and the first single-address wireless email system.

Taking a random walk through the 1990s, we find that in 1992, Xerox PARC, Xerox’s research group, announced a tablet computer. PaperWorks was truly a revolutionary product at the time but quickly failed due to the high cost and low demand. The idea behind PaperWorks was that it would be a handheld device for executives. The executive’s admin (secretary in those days) would copy faxes received on her PC into the tablet and as the executive traveled, he/she could read and mark up the faxes. Upon the executive’s return to the office, the admin would then copy the marked-up documents to her PC to prepare and send responses. The tablet was light and trim and easy to read, but it had no connectivity beyond a port to talk to a single PC.

In 1993, General Magic arrived on the scene with its own operating environment and the ability to use only a few bits of data to wirelessly control actions of another device. For example, you could send a few bits to a friend’s General Magic-based machine and have it depict a man walking across the screen carrying a birthday cake while the device played happy birthday on the speaker. This was a great way to limit the amount of data that needed to be sent over the air. We also had the birth of IntelliLink, the first true device-to-device synchronization application, Fujitsu’s entry into the handheld market with the PoqetPad (which they bought from what was left of Poqet PC), the launch of CDPD (cellular digital packet data services at 19.2 Kbps), and the first set of “netbooks”—the Windows CE-based Jupiter class of sub-notebooks, which were instant-on, under 3 pound, long battery life, sub-notebooks for executives that were designed to work over both wired and wireless communications systems.

August of 1993 brought the announcement of the first Apple Newton and as usual, Apple’s hype for the product was intense—the announcement for the event stated, “On August 2, we’ll unveil an invention as large as your whole world, but no bigger than what you can hold in your hands.” In the same month, Metricom announced the launch of its first Ricochet high-speed wireless data network using unlicensed spectrum. These networks failed three times, but were replaced by Muni-Wi-Fi, which had only failed twice at that point.

1994 started off with a bang. BellSouth announced a phone designed by IBM that qualifies as the first smartphone ever brought to market. The Simon, as it was known, had a touch screen that became a keypad, showed email, displayed calendar appointments, and more. It was also the year Motorola announced its Envoy, based on General Magic’s OS and designed to run on its ARDIS packet-data network. Apple introduced the next Newton, the MessagePad 110, which included an external wireless card. Sony entered the handheld business with the Magic Link, also based on the General Magic OS, Palm Introduced its Graffiti handwriting recognition software, and Seiko launched a paging service using FM broadcast subcarrier signals. The service was DOA and years later Microsoft launched its own version of the same service call SPOT that lived just a little longer and then died.

In the December 1994 issue of Andrew Seybold’s Outlook on Mobile Computing, I recapped the year by saying: “During the past few weeks, it seems as though the computer industry press and many industry analysts had decided that PDAs are no longer devices with a future. They have seen what is available today, heard about what will be available tomorrow, and have decided that while the concept of a PDA is good one, a PDA product is not practical.” I went on to list recent PDA happenings:

1. Compaq delays development of its PDA devices
2. Lotus decides not to pursue a wireless communications strategy
3. Intel/VLSI cancel the handheld CPU chipset known as “polar” [Editor’s Note: Intel has since cancelled or sold off two more handheld processors]
4. Newton, the Apple PDA, is not selling well
5. Motorola has not yet shipped its Envoy product announced last spring, and finally,
6. Microsoft announces it is delaying the release of its WinPad operating system until at least the beginning of 1996.

Moving into 1995, Motorola finally started shipping its Envoy wireless communicator based on the General Magic OS and also its Marco product, basically the same type of communications device designed for corporate America and making use of the Apple Newton operating system. These were both self-contained wireless messaging and communications devices using the ARDIS 19.2-Kbps network and neither of them ended up being a top seller (to be kind). February saw Sony introduce a handheld cellular phone with the ability to send and receive messages using the CDPD packet-data portion of the cellular network, Sharp released its Zaurus handheld with a wireless PCMCIA card, and the PCS spectrum auctions for 1900-MHz spectrum were winding down in March.

Panasonic announced its in-building, wide-area Business Link phone system to provide a single access number to business customers both while in their office and on the road, SkyTel rolled out two-way paging services using narrowband PCS spectrum, Apple launched revision 3 of its Newton, the Message Pad 120, using the Newton OS version 2.0, Megahertz offered a PCMCIA wireless card on the RAM network, and Lotus, which a few years earlier chose not to offer a wireless solution, entered the market with its “freedom pack,” a two-fer wireless modem kit for handheld computers to connect a desktop and a handheld device.

The following year, 1996, was a big year for wireless. We had several new wireless email providers including WyndMail, ZAP-it, and others, the Palm Pilot was released but with no wireless connectivity, and Nokia introduced its Nokia 9000 Communicator, a smartphone that opened up like a clamshell handheld to reveal a larger screen and keyboard. This was the first time the terms “smartphone” and “Internet appliances” were used to describe some of these devices. Voice over the Internet was gaining favor, the first WAP browser phone, the AT&T PocketNet, was introduced, Metricom’s Ricochet muni pre-Wi-Fi networks were being rolled out in many cities, Motorla’s PageWriter, a large, two-way Smart Pager was introduced, as was RIM’s Inter@ctive Pager, and the Apple MessagePad 2000 hit store shelves. And there was yet another start for Handheld PCs, this time employing Microsoft’s Window CE operating system, and pre-Wi-Fi 10BaseT wireless networks were being deployed.

AOL launched all-you-can-eat dial-up Internet access in the beginning of 1997, and the RAM Mobile Data network boasted 55,000 customers from 1,700 different companies. With demand for wireless email being the fastest growing market segment, wireless local loop or Bell Company bypass via wireless voice was a big deal, but AT&T buried its first attempt (pACT) and announced another that never saw the light of day. In-building voice and data convergence reared its head for a little while in 1997. The idea was to combine computer and voice over the same network, but this idea fizzled almost as quickly as it was introduced, as did the other trend, which was to provide a universal mailbox that would handle all of our email and voice mail, both personal and business-related. Also big in 1997 was the idea of developing secondary websites for thin wireless pipes. These sites would be available to wireless devices over slower-speed wireless data networks. Many companies came into existence to provide solutions that would make the Internet mobile and easy to use. Most of them simply faded away into the sunset within a year or so. Intel announced a Mobile Data Initiative, and while the GSM community indicated that Intel had chosen GSM wireless technology, Intel told us it was network agnostic and would work with all network providers regardless of the technology deployed. Ericsson was demonstrating WCDMA at incredible wireless speeds of 256 Kbps, we were in the midst of the GSM/TDMA/CDMA wars, there was a debate raging about messaging (SMS) versus email, Motorola was pushing voice paging with its InFLEXion technology, iPass was founded and began offering access to email on a worldwide basis with a slew of dial-in phone access numbers, and a number of companies were busy working on wireless data compression in order to bring the perceived speed of the networks to where they would be more usable. Palm (then owned by 3COM), Motorola, and PageMart teamed up to introduced the Palm Pilot pager.

Microsoft was big into handheld computers and wireless data services in 1998 and there were more handheld PCs being introduced into the market, many capable of having wireless added to them. At CTIA Wireless 1998, voice wireless companies were enamored with the idea of providing wireless data services as well, and the February issue of our newsletter predicted that wireless data for the mainstream was just around the corner. Home RF, a system for adding wireless voice and data services to the home, was introduced, sub-notebooks were going to be huge, processor speeds for mobile computers were going up, Bluetooth was introduced by Ericsson and Intel, and companies were developing a more wireless-friendly version of TCP/IP. The first discussion of software-defined radios indicted that the technology was coming of age and that customers would soon have a single world phone for both voice and data, neighborhood private networks were in vogue, RIM introduced its smallest two-way messaging device ever, the RIM 950 (the same form factor as the first BlackBerry), Microsoft held its first wireless developers conference, and the FCC mandated E911 for wireless requiring location to be part of the call. Companion PCs (Jupiter-class products)(netbooks) were introduced by many companies using Windows CE, along with Vadem’s Clio, HP Jornada, NEC’s Mobile Pro, and others. The CTIA held the first Wireless IT conference in Las Vegas, and Microsoft and Qualcomm announced WirelessKnowledge, a joint venture to stimulate corporate acceptance of wireless data services.  

The last year of the decade was, in many ways, the true start of the uptake for wireless data services. It began with RIM announcing the first BlackBerry email service running on the BellSouth (RAM) wireless data network and it changed the face of wireless email forever. From day one, RIM provided a secure, single-email-address solution designed as an end-to-end system, at a reasonable price. The folks at RIM got it right! Palm launched the Palm VII with built-in BellSouth Wireless Data connectivity but polling email access, Motorola changed the wireless voice market forever by introducing the StarTAC, the smallest and lightest mobile phone yet, IBM announced an end-to-end wireless data service called Mobile Connect for corporations, and wireless Internet providers struggled to find a way to make money using data that was being given away for free on the wired Internet.

“Information appliance” was a new buzzphrase in 1999, and it was used to define what we are now calling smartphones. Wireless access to the Internet was big. We had WAP browsers and WAP-enabled phones, e-commerce was being discussed, and we were publishing wireless roadmaps for all of the various wireless technologies. Universal Access was still hot, while SMS was huge in Europe and beginning to catch on in the United States. A solution-based wireless access company, OpenSky was born, wireless transactions were getting press as was the use of credit and debit cards over wireless, 3G wireless was on the horizon, and we were all wondering if the computer world as we knew it would collapse on December 31, 1999 (Y2K computer issues). CDMA network operators began rolling out 14.4 circuit-switched dial-up data access, and this entry appeared in our August 1999 Outlook:

“Wireless Internet Feeding Frenzy. The competition to offer content over the Internet has produced a feeding frenzy among those who believe that the Internet and wireless is the next big thing. The investment community is rushing headlong into this space, companies that were ahead of the trend are envisioning bright futures, and alliances and partnerships are being put together on a daily basis. Each of these entries faces the same obstacles, and until there are some sound economic models in place that are embraced by the consumer, this is still very much a crapshoot.” And it goes on to discuss “quick, concise access from anywhere, at any time, to specific data,” which has become one of my mantras.

In September 1999, Barney Dewey, a business partner at the Outlook on Mobile Computing, now Andrew Seybold, Inc., wrote a review of the Visor, a new handheld wireless computer from Handspring, the founders of Palm. In his introduction he stated, “Many great product ideas are obvious—once you see them. Such was our impression when we saw Handspring’s first product, the Visor handheld computer, that will be available in October of this year.” He goes on to say, “We contend that the best computing products are the ones that attract the best, most innovative developers. If this hypothesis is true, then Handspring should be the most successful mobile (wireless) computing product to date.” It was successful, and 3COM acquired Handspring and melded it back into Palm not long after this product hit the market.

The battle of wireless technologies was raging at full steam in 1999 when GSM, TDMA, and CDMA were all doing battle against each other, each claiming to be the best digital technology for the future. TDMA went the way of dinosaurs, and GSM/GPRS/EDGE versus CDMA became the next big battle—a battle that still rages to this day. Qualcomm pushed High Data Rate (HDR) technology for data, the precursor to EV-DO, up to 153 Kbps, moving packet data out of a shared environment with voice to its own spectrum. Microsoft and Ericsson announced a relationship that never went anywhere, just as Microsoft’s earlier relationship with Motorola fizzled, and 1999 drew to a close with few winners in wireless data but great foundations for several products and services that have become mainstream in today’s market.

Conclusion

If you have read the above and are still with me, I hope you have gained a sense of the many different devices and services that marked the first decade of wireless data services, at least in the United States. Most of those mentioned above failed, some have survived, and a few have thrived. I find it interesting that every time a new category of device or service is introduced I can look back and usually find at least one predecessor and, in most cases, the predecessor was a failure. I find myself wondering if these early products would have survived and changed the world of mobile computing and wireless as we know it if they had had today’s wireless broadband capabilities available to them.

For the RIM BlackBerry, the answer is no. The delivery of wireless email does not require a broadband connection. When I carried my first BlackBerry I used to say that I received my email faster than I could read it—and that was on the BellSouth 8 Kbps network. What I did not have was a single device for voice, email, and data, and I didn’t have the ability to sync my calendar and PIM over the air, open attachments, or read HTML email. But I had the basics for what has proven to be the core of RIM’s success: wireless email with a single user address.

Would broadband have made the Windows CE Jupiter class machines (netbooks) successful? Probably not because Microsoft messed up the in and outboxes. Email received via wireless had to be answered via wireless, likewise, wired email had to be answered via wireline. You could respond to a wireless email and connect via a wired connection, but the reply would not actually be sent until you reconnected via wireless.

Would tablet PCs have been a success with broadband? I don’t think so. In addition to broadband, they would have needed more memory, better screens, and faster processors similar to what we have today.

Cloud computing is the wireless version of mainframe and dumb terminal computing and it has been tried before by Sun Microsystems and others. Will cloud computing catch on today because we have faster wireless connections this time around? I don’t think so. It all comes down to trust, and I, for one, don’t trust the Internet with my applications or my data. Ask Nokia and others that have lost a lot of cloud data.

If you go through all of the devices and services listed above and have an idea about reincarnating one of them, ask yourself if faster processors, more memory, better screens, and broadband connectivity will make the next incarnation of the product or service successful. I am willing to bet that in 90% of the cases they won’t make much difference. If customers saw the need for the product then, they would have accepted it even with limitations because it would have solved a problem for them or helped make their lives easier.

Learning from the past is a great way to look into the future. Apple’s iPad will probably be more successful than any other tablet computer that has gone before it, but I don’t think the iPad will have the same impact or success as the iPhone. Perhaps if you have a “new” product idea you should revisit the past—it is easy with Google and other search engines. Read the initial reviews and follow it into the marketplace. Read later reviews and product evaluations, and read about its impact and uptake once it reached the market. Analyze why it failed or was successful and determine how you will make it better so it won’t fail this time. Above all, ask yourself, “What common problem do customers have that this device or service will alleviate?”

Good luck, and remember when charting your course for success to look into the past and learn from others’ mistakes. A lot of venture capital dollars were burned to learn these lessons—better to review the past before moving forward, if only to make sure you do not needlessly burn your own dollars.

Andrew M. Seybold

A number of factors will determine whether the iPad will be a success or a failure, but my own belief is that it will be a non-game-changing, partial success. Realizing that it took Apple three generations of the iPhone to get it right, the first of any new class of product will not tell the story, but it will give us a glimpse into Apple’s vision of a tablet computer. The issue is whether consumers and the business world really want to carry a tablet computer or if this product will end up in various market niches where it makes sense to use a tablet on a daily basis.

Apple got some things right and others wrong. First, so it could avoid telegraphing the introduction of the product, it did not file for FCC type acceptance before the announcement. Since the FCC publishes records of devices that have been submitted for acceptance, what is coming becomes public knowledge if you know where to look. And, of course, many in the media know where to look. Two things, neither of which are advantageous to Apple, could happen now. First, Apple could be issued its type acceptance and have the iPad on the market in March, two months after the product release. It will be difficult to keep up the hype for two months with no product in the market, and other vendors will have a chance to catch up before the product is even available in stores.

It is also possible that the FCC will not approve the device without changes being made, and this could delay the iPad from coming to market for many months. I don’t believe this will be the case, but it certainly could happen, which is one reason FCC type acceptance is usually applied for well before most products are announced. Either way, at some point the iPad will come to market and, if Apple is as good as it has been with previous products, it will read all of the reviews and suggestions for the iPad and perhaps even tweak it a little before it is available in stores. If so, Apple may actually release iPad 1.5 into the market rather than iPad 1.0 and this could make a difference.

Another mistake Apple is making is more serious. Its CEO seems to be using the iPad and iPhone to do battle with Adobe and Google. Apple doesn’t believe Adobe’s Flash is bug-free (I don’t know of any software that is), and feels that Google is trying to destroy the iPhone with its Nexus One phone and Android operating system. The issue I have with these two battles is that if you look back in history, you will find that when a company starts taking on its competitors rather than continuing down a successful road of its own, it loses sight of the fact that it is ultimately customers of the products who determine their success or failure, not competitors. History holds many examples of companies’ demises that began with their obsession with real or perceived competitors. I am not suggesting that Apple will fail, but I think it is taking its eye off the ball and is overly concerned about Google and others.

One of the best and most recent examples of this is the battle Sun undertook against Microsoft several years ago. Sun spent a great deal of time, energy, and money trying to build Java into an operating system to challenge Microsoft’s dominance and wasted a lot of resources trying to develop a Sun office suite of applications that would live in the cloud and be available at virtually no cost. The idea, of course, was to destroy Microsoft’s dominance, not to respond to what its client base wanted. Sun has faded away and is now being wrapped into Oracle, another company that tends to do battle against its competitors rather than listen to its customers.

Google has become another guilty party in this type of activity, declaring war on Microsoft, Apple, and others. It believes it is the future of everything Internet and that it needs to destroy its competitors now rather than prove it is right by delivering what customers want. Google was very arrogant when it introduced the Nexus One, proclaiming it an iPhone killer and not even setting up a customer service operation.

But back to the iPad. It is, in typical Apple style, elegant, easy to use, fast, fun, and responsive. But this alone does not make it a winner. As long as AT&T and other wireless network operators require that each device have its own wireless broadband subscription, I think uptake will be limited. iPhone customers won’t want to pay for wireless broadband for both an iPhone and an iPad, and non-iPhone customers will either have to give up their existing wireless broadband contract or deal with having one contract for each device.

In short, the iPad is not the game changer the iPhone was. It is a nice niche product, but it is competing with notebooks, netbooks, smartbooks, and soon other tablet PCs, and it is not clear how large the tablet PC market is or will become. I classify mobile products in several categories. The first set of classifications is unconscious-carry versus conscious-carry. When you leave your office or home, you decide what to take with you for that trip, even if it is only to a store or to run errands. Your unconscious-carry device is something you wear on your belt, put in your pocket, or carry in your purse. It is usually a phone, and today many are smartphones. A conscious-carry device is something you have to think about whether to carry with you: a laptop, net or smartbook, or iPad. This definition may not be appropriate for college students whose unconscious-carry device is really a backpack that has everything in it, but it does apply to the rest of us.

The next category is the need to access information versus create information while you are away from your home or office. If you only need access to email, calendar, and the web, and you don’t need to write an article, paper, or report of some kind, chances are you will only take your unconscious-carry smartphone with you and leave your other devices behind. However, if you need full access to your work to create or change it in the field, you will want to take another device with you. To me, the iPad is not a must-have, must-carry-all-the-time device.

Apple is also trying to capture a piece of the ebook market and I am sure the iPad will be great for that, but the business model will have to change. I carry a Kindle in my briefcase, I do not pay a monthly fee for Sprint’s broadband service since Amazon pays Sprint when I download a book, and it doesn’t cost me anything to use. I can read every day and only buy the books I want, which are surprisingly inexpensive. Yes, the Kindle is a specific-purpose device, but it is small, light, and works for me. Others may prefer a multipurpose device or like to see web pages on the screen, but I am more into the convenience and the content—which is why there are so many device choices.

A number of my friends and business associates use the iPhone constantly. I watch them and talk to them about it. My doctor uses his to look up medications and interactions and all sorts of things. Most if not all of these people simply pull out their iPhone, access the application they want, and get the information they are looking for. This is much different from having to get out an iPad to do the same thing, and I cannot imagine any of them trading their iPhone for an iPad. They might want both, but again, I think the wireless broadband pricing model will quickly kill that idea.

The iPad is a nice device and I am looking forward to being able to experiment with it. Will it replace my BlackBerry and notebook combination? No, it won’t. Will I add it to my collection of mobile devices as yet another option? No, I won’t. I am certain that Apple will have some success with the iPad, but not to the same degree as the iPhone, nor will it change the industry in the same way. Tablet PCs have been available for more than ten years in one form or another, including some current entries where a notebook is converted to a tablet by turning the screen around. Microsoft has been supporting tablets with its own operating system for a number of years, yet the tablet has remained an almost insignificant portion of portable computer sales. With the entry of the iPad and other tablet computers that will follow, we will see if there really is a market for them after all.

Pundits, analysts, reporters, competitors, and Apple fans all have their own first impressions of the iPad. Once it becomes available in the marketplace, there will be more reports and we will find out more. In the meantime, Apple may have a problem keeping the buzz alive. Once the buzz and hype wear off, will there be enough momentum to propel the iPad into a true success in the marketplace? My bet is that there won’t be, for the many reasons I have described above and a few more. If the iPad is only a mild success, as I believe it will be, it will have fallen victim to its own predecessor, the iPhone, which has already hurt the netbook, smartbook, and notebook markets.

I believe that the convenience of a smartphone and the fact that we always have it with us, smaller screen and all, will make the iPad an interesting new product that will find its way into market niches but not the mainstream.

Andrew M. Seybold

Notable firsts in 2010 will include Verizon being the first nationwide network to roll out LTE in the 700-MHz band, which it plans to do in a number of cities. At the Consumer Electronics Show (CES), the company held a press conference and demoed many products and services over an LTE network installed inside the Venetian Hotel.

Verizon is not merely rolling out LTE at 700 MHz, it is rolling out a completely new set of business models from the way it handles devices on the network to sales and marketing efforts, and especially how it is working with its device testing labs and developer programs. Pricing for services has not yet been established, but as reported elsewhere, there are sure to be changes in the way we pay for this data, how much of it we have access to, and when. These new pricing models are expected to roll backward to the other 3G networks as well. There is no choice since the networks, even LTE, will have to be managed, and the best way to manage them is by offering a variety of bandwidth and usage models with different pricing. I think we will see everything from occasional use fees (say, 24 hours) to pricing based on access speeds (as with DSL and cable) to pricing based on types and number of devices.

Anyone who doubts that Verizon is serious about LTE and that new business models will emerge in 2010 was not at the press briefing at CES nor were they walking the demo area and seeing what is already up and running from multi-player games to security video and everything in between. Many of the applications and devices being shown were fixed rather than mobile with video surveillance cameras being one example, and fixed wireless modems for home and office use being another. Today’s mobile wireless network designs are based on the assumption that most if not all devices are mobile and will move from cell to cell over time. The resultant network is maximized for the amount of traffic that can be handled by any one cell sector, leaving a reserve for traffic being handed off from different cell sectors.

Yes, there are some fixed devices on the market today, but there will be a lot more with LTE. This brings up an interesting question: If there will be more fixed devices on these networks, and network operators won’t know how many per cell sector, how will that affect the system design and build-out? Different people have given me very different answers. It is conceivable that a single cell sector’s full LTE capacity could be usurped by a single customer with multiple real-time color video streams from multiple cameras, or that a number of people in a given neighborhood are using fixed LTE devices. I am sure this will all be sorted out, but it will be challenging for the system engineers to account for these new variables in their calculations.

CES

The Consumer Electronics Show is one of my favorites because I do love gadgets, new concepts, and new devices, and CES is becoming more wireless by the year. Only a few short years ago, you really had to search to find wireless on the exhibit floor—now it is everywhere, even in the TV booths. Everyone was flocking to see the new 3D TV systems that were the talk of the show, but it seemed that every TV booth was also showing mobile or handheld TV. Mobile TV has not been a big success so far, but there appear to be a number of companies betting it will be over time. Perhaps I am missing something here, but I don’t really believe we will want to watch TV while mobile the same way we do when sitting at home.

CES was also a sort of coming out party for Qualcomm. Days before Google announced its Nexus One smartphone (see this week’s blog post), Lenovo was displaying a hot new smartbook that uses the Snapdragon 1-GHz processor, HP was showing its own smartbook, and many more are in the wings. I think smartbooks using the Qualcomm processor will give netbooks using the Intel Atom processor some tough competition. The Lenovo smartbook is sleek and light, and provides 10 hours of battery life (a real 10 hours) performing typical computing tasks and 5 hours watching videos (two full movies). It is quick and easily drives an external monitor to 780p resolution. Intel should be worried. Many of the same vendors offering Atom processor netbooks are also building Snapdragon processor smartbooks. If Intel thought these companies would not build both, it has just been proven wrong. Further, the smartbooks, as well as some of the netbooks, are using Qualcomm’s Gobi wireless chipset that supports all current flavors of 2G and 3G wireless services on a worldwide basis. Paul Jacobs, Chairman and CEO of Qualcomm, gave one of the keynote addresses—not bad for a company with no consumer presence—and gave away Flo-TV devices to some in the audience. Intel has a way to go to catch up…if it can.

As I had predicted, we now have both sides represented. There are computers with wireless built in and wireless devices with computers built in. And there are smartphones using Qualcomm chipsets. The high-mobility market is no longer exclusively Intel territory.

Another thing I enjoy about big shows are the rumors that float around or are started during the show, usually in the press room by those who are perhaps simply thinking out loud. One rumor I picked up on a number of times was that Sprint would sell its stake in Clearwire and move on to LTE. Sounds like it could happen except, and this is a big exception, it doesn’t have any 700-MHz spectrum. Sprint didn’t even show up at the auction and it would be hard pressed to roll out LTE on top of its CDMA EV-DO offering even with all of its 1900-MHz spectrum. So here’s a scenario I came up with for this to happen. First, Sprint would have to divest itself of Nextel, if it can find a buyer willing to take on the network and the remaining obligations that go along with the rebanding effort including the several billion dollars more it will cost to complete. Next, the FCC would have to allocate more spectrum and put it out to auction so Sprint could step up and buy a decent nationwide footprint. Then it could sell its 51% interest in Clearwire, if a buyer could be found (Google?). I don’t think this is very likely. Rather, I think Clearwire will last another 2 years, by which time TD-LTE will be available. Sprint will pick up the pieces and turn the 2.5-GHz spectrum into a TD-LTE system to compete with Verizon and AT&T, both of which will have a significant LTE footprint by then. Another rumor going around was that Sprint would be purchased by Comcast. While these rumors are fun to discuss, reality will probably be far different.

Several years ago, I wrote about wireless penetration exceeding 300%. I based this prediction on the convergence of wireless and consumer devices such as the Kindle and other products. At the show, numbers more in the 500% range were being bandied about. Some of this speculation is based on the new e-readers being announced, navigation devices with built-in wireless, netbooks, and smartbooks. CES was full of devices that include wireless connectivity with everything from Zigbee home control to Wi-Fi and wide-area systems. The wireless industry is doing well and CES is becoming more wireless-friendly and wireless-educated with each passing year. It won’t be long before we will find one or more varieties of wireless in all 2,500 booths.

Palm announced several things at its press conference at CES, but the two most important to me are the two new phones being introduced on the Verizon network: the Palm Pre Plus and Palm Pixi Plus. The ‘Plus’ indicates a number of things including 16 GB of memory, doubling the existing memory in the Pre, and the fact that these phones are also Wi-Fi routers that can be set up to provide access to the Internet using the Verizon EV-DO 3G network and the onboard Wi-Fi that can be used to provide access to up to 5 Wi-Fi-capable devices per phone. I was thinking that if you wanted an iPhone on Verizon, all you would have to do is keep a Palm Pre in your pocket set up as a router and use your iPod touch as an iPhone on the Verizon network, sans voice. Perhaps that was what the earlier rumor about the iPhone coming to Verizon was all about!

The wireless Internet was everywhere—in the Qualcomm, Motorola, LG, Samsung, and other booths, on the Google phone, and elsewhere. It was interesting to see how many people still believe that the wireless Internet will remain like the wired Internet even though they are hearing from the wireless operators how they will have to change their data pricing models to help manage the data flow across their networks. You have heard this before, but it would seem to me that smart devices on smart networks running smart software would help with network management and at the same time provide customers with a much better wireless experience. I guess it will take some speed bumps to get that across to those who believe the two Internets will remain the same. Perhaps it will even happen in time for the FCC to realize that wired and wireless networks are not the same and need to be treated differently.

I will leave detailed product reviews to the hundreds or thousands of reporters who walked the show floor, attended the evening events, and mingled with each other. They will probably do a better job than I would and most of them are probably more positive about products such as PC tablets or two-way video-equipped TVs and how we will all sit in front of our TVs and hold video conferences with family and friends on a regular basis. There certainly was enough technology being shown to provide connectivity to and from almost anything, but I keep asking myself exactly what problem a specific product or technology solves, what it adds to our lives, or why I would want something like that. Maybe I am getting old. What is more likely though is that most of what I saw at the show has already been tried one or more times before. Some ideas might actually catch on this time around because our communications capabilities, both wired and wireless, are so much better than the last time around. But then again, maybe not.

Andrew M. Seybold

I recently wrote a wrap-up of 2009 for FierceWireless and mentioned a few things I thought had an impact on wireless during the year. What I presented as being important—the Apple iPhone 3GS, the new FCC, the beginnings of net neutrality, cloud computing, broadband stimulus funding, TV white space unlicensed spectrum, WiMAX and LTE, smartphones, app stores, ebooks, and more—were certainly prominent in 2009, but they were conceived of much earlier and will carry forward into 2010 and beyond. The only reason most of us who write about technology at the end of one year and the beginning of the next is that it is expected of us, most likely because the new year represents new beginnings.

What Happened

As I reviewed my FierceWireless column to prepare to write this final COMMENTARY of 2009, I thought of other things that had happened and things that should have happened but did not. The most significant happening was something I view as a negative for the wireless industry. This was the first year of the new administration, a new FCC, and many new people at various levels within the government. It was a year when people and companies not directly involved with wireless effectively lobbied all parts of the government concerning wireless and how it should be, according them, rather than how it is and how it must be due to certain laws of physics.

We had already lost some ground to these people in 2007 and 2008. Google was partially successful in its push to have some of the 700-MHz spectrum auctioned with open access requirements. Google and others fought hard and won more unlicensed spectrum known as TV White Space (which is basically unusable in urban areas, but they did not know that when they went after it). The wireless industry lost even more ground to the wired Internet industry in 2009. The new FCC Chairman announced his plans for a net neutrality ruling and the FCC published documents and asked for feedback. The FCC also said that net neutrality might be treated differently for wireless—the “might” depends upon whom you listen to within the FCC. I am not sure, exactly, what net neutrality is or what is supposed to stop, even though I have read the FCC’s postings a number of times along with many of the comments that have been filed.

No matter what you use as an on-ramp to the Internet, at some point that on-ramp can and will become congested. Add to that the fact that every network has data-hogs—people who use their Internet connection to move lots of data. For example, one “home” served by a cable provider was running 3 or 4 servers and providing large amounts of video and other content across the web, all while the people next door were trying to access the Internet to read their mail. AT&T recently stated that about 3% of its smartphone customers account for 40% of the data usage. I have to ask how, exactly, net neutrality will fix these problems. I believe it could actually make things worse, especially in the wireless world.

Today, at least on the wired/cable side of the business, price points are used to determine how much data speed a customer is entitled to. If you pay the lowest price, you get the slowest speed. However, especially in a cable environment where the total bandwidth is shared in a neighborhood, the more people who are on the system, the slower it is for everyone. Isn’t that fair and as it should be? Systems only have so much capacity. If one user is on the system, he or she can have most of it. If the system is then shared by 2, 6, 8, or 10 people, each experiences the same speed and access. Normally, the bandwidth and data speeds seem fine since not everyone on the same on-ramp is using data at the same time. One of the advantages of packet systems is that packets are intermingled and in normal circumstances, short-lived slowdowns are not even noticed. However, one or more neighbor downloading large video files can have an impact on your access.

This becomes even more pronounced with wireless where capacity is available on a cell sector basis. If you are the only person in the cell sector, again, you have most of the bandwidth (some is reserved for others coming into the cell). But as more people join you in the sector, everyone’s data speeds are reduced and should be the same for everyone. This assumes that the network is being managed, that it is a smart network, and that the network operator is able to manage the connections to the benefit of all of its users, not a selected few. In other words, whoever gets to the bandwidth first should not be permitted to hog it at the expense of others who come on later. I, for one, don’t see how net neutrality will ensure that this doesn’t happen.

I think the answer is Quality of Service with varying pricing levels for varying amounts of data and peak rate pricing. If it is 2 pm in the afternoon and you want to download a very large file, it might cost a few extra dollars, but if you defer the download until 2 am, it could be free. The market and networks should be able to be managed to smooth out network loading so all customers can have equal access. If net neutrality ends up restricting operators’ ability to properly manage their network and limit the amount of data consumed by a single customer to the exclusion of others, it will make the situation worse. The FCC began moving on its plan in 2009, but 2010 will be the critical year.

Those pushing for net neutrality, both wired and wireless, do not seem to understand that every single method of access to and from the Internet has a finite amount of capacity and, at some point along the route, it will become shared capacity. If is it shared, it should be shared equally. Network management is the way to make sure this is the case.

I have often wondered why the cable company that serves New York City was not permitted to reign in the few individuals who were abusing the system by using much more data than the average user when satellite Internet providers have been throttling back customers for many years. When using a satellite system, download speeds usually stay the same, but upload speeds are throttled back when the uplink is used for an extended period of time to send or receive large files.

The net neutrality issue should be of concern to both wired and wireless companies alike. To me, the key here is that those wanting to make the rules do not have a clear understanding of  bandwidth limitations and capacity. Some education for these people is probably in order, especially since some of them seem to be under the impression that both the Internet and the wireless networks will continue to keep pace no matter how fast data traffic increases. This impression is not  based on facts, which is part of the problem. The idea of net neutrality came about many years ago, but now it is in the limelight and I hope it does not rear its ugly head in 2010.

The fact remains that the wireless community is losing ground in the battle for the government mindset. If you spend any time reading the comments on the FCC site (www.broadband.gov) you will find a lot of complaining about wireless companies ripping off consumers. It appears as though no amount of logic or real data (which the new FCC says will rule its decision-making process) will convince those who want to complain that the United States has some of the lowest voice and data rates and that data rationing is already being instituted in other parts of the world. The real problem, of course, is that these types of sites only attract those who don’t like something. Rarely does anyone who has something positive to say add to those comments so the result is a very one-sided view of the wireless broadband world. Again, education is sorely needed. The CTIA is doing some things to address this need, but the industry itself needs to become more proactive.

What Did Not Happen?

The biggest non-happening of 2009 was the absolute lack of progress on the much-needed public safety broadband system. The D Block should have been turned over to the Public Safety Spectrum Trust, funding should have been made available, the waivers for cities and regions that want to build out pilot systems should all have been approved, and the public safety community, working with commercial networks, should have begun putting their systems in the ground. It has been a long time since Katrina and longer still since 9/11. I wonder what it will take to move this forward. It seems a bit lopsided to me that we can provide fiber for a farmer in rural America but we cannot provide a broadband network for the public safety community, even in urban areas.

Considering the world economic situation in 2009, I think we should all be thankful that the wireless industry survived and, in some cases, thrived this past year. If the economy is improving, and I hope it is, we should see even more exciting progress in 2010, but we all need to redouble our efforts to help neophytes understand the nuances of wireless services, and especially broadband. There are too many self-appointed experts making pronouncements about this industry when they do not have all of the facts, nor knowledge about spectrum usage and the laws of physics that govern the limits to what can be done with a finite amount of spectrum. I hope 2010 sees some more reasonable give and take between the various parties and that everyone keeps in mind that at the end of the day, customers and their wallets will have the final word.

Andrew M. Seybold

Subject: The Public Safety Community needs your help NOW!

As you know, the most significant issue for the public safety community is the lack of interoperable communications during a major incident. This has been a problem for at least forty years but was brought to the attention of the general public during and after 9/11 and then Katrina. Some progress has been made in solving many of the problems that plague the public safety community, but not enough.

Between now and February 2010, you have the opportunity to make the public safety nationwide wireless broadband network a reality. But time is short and there is much to be done. By way of this letter, I am asking that you treat this issue with the priority it deserves.

In 2008, the 700-MHz D Block that was to be the start of the first public/private partnership for broadband communications, for various reasons, was not successfully auctioned. In late 2009, the FCC floated another proposal for re-auctioning this block of spectrum that called for both nationwide and regional bids, and involved two types of wireless technology. Fortunately, that auction was tabled with the change in administrations.

Since the first D Block auction failure, the public safety community and the private sector have been working toward the common goal of finding a way to make this network a reality both quickly and with the least amount of investment possible. In essence, the public safety community now has a plan in place that if approved by Congress and the FCC will enable this network to move forward rapidly, with a minimum of cost.

The solution will result in a number of private/public partnerships, not mandated by the government, but formed between the public safety community and the private sector on a region-by-region basis. This will enable the network, or more accurately, the series of networks, to be built quickly and efficiently, and will reduce the cost to the public safety community since the private sector will be supplying back-end services for the networks. In rural America, the public/private partnership will also provide access to broadband connectivity for power companies to use as part of the smart grid, for homes and businesses, schools, hospitals, and other organizations, while still ensuring that public safety has priority access to the spectrum.

The public safety community, many of the private sector network operators, rural power, and Telco companies have proposed the following:

1. Remove the D Block from the auction pool and assign it to the Public Safety Spectrum Trust (holder of the current public safety license) to provide public safety with 20 MHz of spectrum rather than the 10 MHz now assigned.
   • This spectrum will be needed in most urban areas on a full-time basis and will provide the public safety community with better access to information needed in the field. In rural America, it will be used as part of the shared network mentioned above.
   • This will require action by Congress to remove the spectrum from the auction pool.
2. The FCC then needs to
   • Permit those who have filed waivers to start building their pilot and test systems;
   • License the D Block to the Public Safety Spectrum Trust (PSST);
   • Provide the PSST with the mechanics to allow access to the spectrum by the regions, states, and cities that have committed to build the network in their area;
   • Charge the PSST with responsibility for the integration of all of these networks into a common nationwide public safety network.

Other things that need to be done during this of time are to find a way to fund the public safety community for the completion of the network. Estimates for this have ranged from $10 billion to more than $40 billion. In several hearings, members of Congress have, rightfully, asked about the cost of the network. The response depends primarily on the actions of Congress.

If Congress approves re-allocation of the D Block to the public safety community, and the FCC allows regional network build-out with the assistance of the private sector on a region-by-region, city-by-city basis, the true cost of the competed network would be more toward the low end of the numbers presented above.

It is imperative that public safety have unlimited access to all 20 megahertz of this spectrum in urban areas. The number of applications that will be used across this network will grow over time, but even at the outset, cities such as New York that have experience with existing broadband networks, and those presently using commercial wireless broadband networks are moving a lot of data across the networks and this trend will continue as more of the nationwide system is completed.

I am asking you to consider the following:

1. Re-allocate the 700-MHz D Block to the PSST
2. Have the FCC authorize the PSST to allow access to the spectrum by regional, state, and city for all 20 MHz of the spectrum
3. Have the FCC approve the waivers already on file along with others that will be filed
4. Address the issue of funding the network and its operation
   • With a specific allocation from the federal government
   • By using funding already set aside for rural broadband, educational, and medical services

This is the ideal time to make the public safety nationwide wireless broadband network a reality. The public safety community is in agreement, many within the private sector have agreed to partner with the public safety community, and the spectrum is available. By approving the construction of regional, state, and city networks, the nationwide plan can come together within years and not decades, and with many fewer billions of dollars being spent on the project.

The time to act is now. I hope you will support the public safety community as they give all they have to ensure our safety every day. We need to help them improve their communications systems to be more effective and more efficient.

Respectfully submitted,
Andrew M. Seybold
President and Principal Consultant
Andrew Seybold, Inc.

When Sprint purchased Nextel (or the companies merged, depending on how you look at it), the object was to implement PTT on the CDMA network, migrate the Nextel customers to CDMA PTT, and then to finish the project of rebanding the Nextel channels that was underway. The new company would eventually end up with enough contiguous spectrum at 850 MHz to deploy CDMA and have both 850 MHz and 1900 MHz CDMA to better compete with Verizon and AT&T, which already had a mix of the two bands. However, the rebanding required by the FCC because of Nextel’s interference to public safety and other two-way radio systems did not go as planned. Several years after the rebanding was scheduled for completion, it is still not finished and it has cost $billions more than anticipated.

Sprint was able to deploy Qualcomm’s QChat, a very robust PTT service, over EV-DO Rev A while Verizon was not. This was due to a contractual arrangement between Qualcomm and Motorola and some say Nextel. The agreement stated that QChat could not be deployed anywhere there is an iDEN system in service. Since Sprint and Nextel were now one and the same company, Sprint was permitted to deploy QChat and it did. Sprint also built some bridging between the Nextel PTT and QChat over EV-DO Rev A to provide for interoperability between the two PTT services. But their plans to migrate all Nextel customers to Sprint fell by the wayside. Sprint became distracted with other issues including customer retention and WiMAX, and for a few years, both PTT systems have been available.

Now Sprint has totally reversed course, stating that it will no longer sell QChat on its CDMA network and will instead spend time, money, and effort keeping the iDEN (Nextel) network in place and even enhancing it. Meanwhile, AT&T rolled out its own PTT offering provided by Kodiak networks and Verizon finally added PTT with an offering by Motorola that also requires EV-DO Rev A. PTT has not been a big seller, except for Nextel, but there are a number of companies and individuals who do use it on a regular basis. And now there are some things happening in the two-way radio world that could push many two-way radio customers over to commercial PTT services.

So why did Sprint make this move? The first things that come to mind are that if it were to sell off Nextel it would no longer be able to offer QChat over its CDMA network because of the original contractual agreement, stranding a number of PTT customers or losing them to another network. It is also possible that Sprint has not been selling much in the way of Sprint CDMA PTT services and has decided it is not worth the effort to continue offering it. (Sprint has stated that it will continue to support its existing PTT customers.) It is also possible that because of its belief in WiMAX and its relationship with Clear, that it will not be building out much more CDMA EV-DO Rev A, which means it will not be in a position to offer Sprint PTT in some of the areas where Nextel’s PTT is not available.

A high percentage of Nextel’s installed base uses the PTT feature, but don’t forget that every single device on the Nextel network has PTT capabilities. On the Sprint CDMA network, as well as Verizon’s and AT&T’s GSM/HSPA network, the choice of PTT handsets is limited. You have to ask for PTT and buy one of the few handsets that support it, whereas on the Nextel network, no matter what device you buy, including a BlackBerry, you get PTT as part of the package.

Is Demand for PTT Dying?

Today’s numbers show that PTT is used by a small portion of wireless device customers, and the new PTT services that have been added to AT&T and Verizon are not setting any records for sales. However, as mentioned above, the next three years could be good for commercial PTT services. By January 1, 2013, all existing two-way radio customers using spectrum between 150 MHz and 512 MHz will have to replace their equipment with newer, narrowband equipment. This has been known for a number of years and many customers have been buying equipment that is capable of narrowband operation and they will be ready for the deadline. However, there a many more who have not yet come to understand that their entire fleet of twenty-year-old radios will have to be replaced, and that the cost of a new two-way radio can run anywhere from $300 to several thousand dollars. Replacing this equipment could cost thousands or tens of thousands of dollars.

It would be much less expensive to simply replace existing two-way radio systems with commercial phones that include PTT service as part of the offering. In many cases, commercial network coverage in a given region is as good if not better than many two-way radio systems, most of which are strictly regional in nature. There is an opportunity for commercial network operators to replace existing two-way radio systems with their own commercial PTT systems, but in many cases it is not as simple as that. Many of these systems are dispatch-based and use computer software to track vehicles, route them, and send and receive service and call reports (all using voice), so any replacement system will have to include this type of software. However, on the plus side, two-way radio customers carry wireless phones today. If they choose to move to a commercial network, they will have the added capabilities of broadband data, vehicle location via GPS, and network tracking if they so desire.

So there is that market, and there is the teen market, which I believe commercial network operators have missed. Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking offerings have been pushed to the forefront by the younger generations. Texting is mostly for younger folks, and they are also heavy voice service users. However, no one has tried offering one-to-many PTT services specifically to this age group. Think of it as Twitter for voice, or updating a Facebook page in voice. Groups could include friends, girls only (for girls), or guys only (for boys). You could have groups of two, five, or thirty, and with a single push of a button reach all of them in real time. I think this is a market that could be tapped, but it probably would require cross-network PTT services to become hugely popular.

Nextel also did well with the public safety community over the years. While it tried and mostly failed to persuade counties and cities that it could satisfy all of the first responder communications requirements (which it cannot), it did end up with a number of public safety accounts and is widely used today for administrative and other non-emergency traffic to free up emergency dispatch channels for more urgent communications. Nextel is also good for senior officers who are out in public and don’t want a two-way radio squawking in their ear all of the time but need to be instantly in contact with their dispatch center in the event of an emergency.

There is no reason this type of secondary usage cannot be accomplished over any of the networks that offer PTT today, except perhaps that there are not enough choices of PTT-capable phones. Suppose a Verizon BlackBerry had PTT capabilities, or the AT&T iPhone. Both would appeal not only to public safety executives but also, perhaps, to the younger generation. I believe PTT is languishing because what drove it in the first place—two-way radio customers who were accustomed to having PTT—have either stayed with two-way radios, moved to Nextel, or found they did not really need PTT functionality. I have not seen anyone try to sell PTT for other purposes or uses and I believe it could become popular again if someone spent some time and effort developing new markets.

In the meantime, will Sprint sell Nextel? One reason for Sprint to stop offering PTT on its CDMA network is to keep Nextel churn to a minimum. The more customers Nextel loses, the less the network is worth to someone else. And if Sprint does sell Nextel, it probably won’t be able to continue to offer QChat on its own network. If Sprint is not preparing to sell Nextel, perhaps it has simply lost interest in moving customers to its CDMA network. Nextel already offers GPS location services, industrial-strength devices, and lots of sales force, service/repair, and vehicle tracking software, so perhaps moving those customers to Sprint’s network doesn’t make sense.

Then again, perhaps Sprint doesn’t want to continue to invest in additional coverage for its CDMA EV-DO Rev A network, which is required for QChat PTT. Maybe Sprint doesn’t want to offer services it cannot support across its entire network. Perhaps it believes that the Clear WiMAX network will eventually out-cover its own EV-DO network, or perhaps it doesn’t want to have to sell combination devices for WiMAX and Sprint as well as for Nextel and Sprint. Or it could be that consolidating PTT back into Nextel will enable most of the Sprint sales force to once again concentrate on the Sprint network and now the Clear network. It must be difficult to explain the differences between three networks, each with its pluses and minuses.

Whatever Sprint’s reasons for deciding it will no longer sell PTT on its CDMA network but will continue to actively sell it on Nextel’s network will become clear, I am sure, with time. In the meantime, I would love to see the Nextel network donated to the Public Safely Spectrum Trust (PSST) and used in conjunction with the PSST’s broadband spectrum at 700 MHz. Public safety interoperability needs to be both voice and data, and Nextel’s existing network, augmented in some areas, could become a good nationwide backbone for voice interoperability. I don’t expect Sprint to simply give Nextel away, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find out it is being packaged for sale.

Andrew M. Seybold

But by sharing resources and build-outs, and working together, a lot more could be accomplished for a lot less. It bothers me that the FCC is putting together a broadband report that is intended to be a guide for our future instead of ensuring that the expansion of broadband services continues to be market driven, which means finding ways to make even the most rural installations attractive from a return on investment aspect. One way is through cooperation.

However,

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) are in charge of all matters having to do with our wireless spectrum. The government portion of the spectrum is handled by the NTIA while the private sector, including the public safety community, is handled by the FCC. As you may know, the FCC has been instructed to undertake and complete a study about our broadband strategy going forward and this report is due in February of 2010. Likewise, the FCC is also trying to determine if the unauctioned 700-MHz D Block should be put out for auction again or given to the first responder community (which has the nationwide license for the adjacent 5X5 MHz for the first responders broadband system).

Also in the works is a review of how today’s spectrum is being utilized or underutilized. This review is intended to shed some light on how to “find” additional spectrum to satisfy various needs. Meanwhile, CTIA, The Wireless Association, says we need about 800 MHz of additional spectrum for commercial voice and broadband wireless operators, and power companies are looking for spectrum for their “smart grid.” Those who support unlicensed spectrum are now asking for more, having discovered that the TV White Space spectrum they were awarded last year is not usable to any practical extent in urban areas, and there is pressure for more spectrum from various other groups such as health care, education, transportation, and others.

As has been the case for many years, there are more people and organizations asking for spectrum than there is spectrum available. One group is promoting the idea of cognitive radios that would monitor the spectrum, identify channels that are not being used at the moment, and switch their traffic over to these channels. According to these folks, we would never have to worry about spectrum utilization again. It seems to me that most of the people asking for spectrum that are not directly involved in wireless technologies don’t grasp the concept of a finite resource, nor do they comprehend the concept that in any given location, spectrum has a finite capacity limit for voice and broadband services. Yes, we have been extending this capacity with new technologies and we are a lot better at it than ever before. Still, there is a limit to the amount of data that can be effectively transmitted and received in a given amount of spectrum in a given area.

What Is Not Happening

While all of this wrangling over spectrum is going on, I think what is not happening is more important that what is. The government and those pushing it are looking at the options from their own perspectives and not from a broader perspective that would be beneficial to all (or most).

Take a look at the smart grid. Rumor has it that the power companies want to use WiMAX on their own spectrum for the smart grid. This is not a bad idea if there is spectrum readily available, but why does the entire smart grid have to be on one portion of spectrum or make use of only one technology? The smart grid, as I understand it, will be based on fixed devices—devices that don’t move around. That being the case, there is no need for a smart grid in California to share the same spectrum or even the same wireless technology as a smart grid in Florida. Perhaps they will need to be able to communicate, but the system will be all-IP and IP does not care what technologies or frequencies are used for the transport, only that it is IP. With IP, smart grids using different spectrum and different wireless technologies can be connected.

Let’s switch now to the latest hot topic—broadband for all—and see what the $7.2 billion in stimulus money will really accomplish. This is a case where the government has asked for proposals and will award grants based on their merits. Again, the technologies can be different and the spectrum or wired deployments can vary from one region to the next. The primary goal is to connect more people to the Internet. I don’t happen to believe that the $7.2 billion will accomplish a lot in the way of new connectivity.

Both of these examples, and there are plenty more, deal with system types that do not require a vehicle or person from California to be able to travel to Virginia and use the system. These are fixed systems. Mobility for power company staff will most likely be provided by commercial or channelized private radio spectrum—not a part of the smart grid. In the case of rural broadband, you could make the case that mobility is needed, but you can also make the case that nomadic broadband access is a logical first step. Because nomadic systems are far less expensive to build than systems that support true mobility, we could provide more broadband into more areas more quickly by starting out with fixed systems.

There are reasons that some technologies and spectrum usage should be aligned. The most significant problem with the public safety community’s frequencies is that its voice channels are spread out over a wide range of different portions of the spectrum making it is exceedingly complex and expensive to provide true interoperability. It is very possible that a search and rescue team from California will need to travel to New York City during a major incident (as was the case during and after 9/11), or that first responders from far and wide need to be mobilized and moved into a large area after a hurricane (such as Katrina) or during and after major fires such as the recent wildfires fires in California. In such cases, true interoperability must be enabled.

But Public Safety users are not the only ones who need communications regardless of where they are. At least 15% of the U.S. population travel out of their own region (conversely, 85% do not often leave their own region) and today they have the ability to communicate almost anywhere they are over commercial networks. The FBI, Secret Service, and other agencies need and have the same radio channels wherever they travel within the United States, but not the Department of Transportation, Forest Service, FEMA, DHS, and other agencies. Statewide communications are necessary for some other agencies, and regional communications for still others.

There are only two ways to achieve true nationwide mobility. The first is to employ a common portion of the spectrum using a common air interface. The second is to build devices that incorporate multiple portions of the spectrum and multiple air interface standards, which is how today’s wireless phones and other devices that operate on commercial networks are designed. Granted, it would be easier and less expensive if there were a single slice of spectrum and a single technology standard, but this is not the case and our engineers are pretty amazing when it comes to building small devices with many different technologies onboard.

So why are so many groups vying for their own spectrum? Wouldn’t it make more sense to combine groups and use a single broadband system whether nationwide with a single technology, or regional with multiple technologies?

In rural America connectivity to the Internet is needed and wanted by homeowners, apartment dwellers, businesses, schools, healthcare organizations, power companies, educational institutions, and others. Why not develop a common pipe that all of these organizations can share? A pipe that has capacity, is managed, and provides services to all of those who need them and can pay for them.

In reality, commercial network operators already provide this type of system that can be used by anyone for anything in more populated areas. They have not built out rural America because until now there has never been a business model for doing so. However, I think that in the coming years broadband will reach out to rural America and will be shared by those who want and need it, especially if incentives are provided.

There is nothing wrong with service in one town being provided by WiMAX and in the next county being on LTE. Nor is there anything wrong with using LTE on 700 MHz for backhaul and connecting customers via WiMAX, Wi-Fi, or even TV White Space systems. (One challenge for coverage in rural America is the backhaul from a small town or area back to the Internet.)

There are plenty of ways in which to accomplish the goals of so many diverse groups at, I believe, a lower cost to everyone. Today in Canada, there are three nationwide network operators, two of which, Bell Mobility and Telus, are just now launching a 3G network covering 93% of Canada’s population. Yes, I said one 3G network to be shared by both companies. They have saved money on building the network and have shared sites. Both know that in today’s environment, it is not technology that will make one company more successful than the other, it is applications, customer service, and other aspects of competition. I am not suggesting this would work in the United States, but I am suggesting that there are some aspects that might be beneficial here.

If we are to make the best possible use of our spectrum, and we know that the Internet will overwhelm us regardless of how much spectrum we have, perhaps it is time to start working on making the wireless Internet smarter to minimize the number of bits and bytes going over the airwaves, while maximizing the user experience.  This alone would help reduce the amount of data traffic on our wireless networks. We have smart devices and our wireless networks are smart. The last piece of this puzzle is to make applications smarter and use our smart networks to communicate with our smart devices in a much smarter way.

It is important for those who want to use broadband to work together. And it is just as important for those who run our networks to be able to manage them and the information flowing across them—not to give one customer an advantage over another, but so that in times of network congestion every customer shares equally in what resources are available. If we cannot manage the networks, the delivery of bandwidth could become first-come first-served, and that is not fair to the rest of the customers on the network.

No one will have all of the spectrum they want; they will have to settle for less than their ideal. But with more smarts and better management, we should be able to provide services to all who want them. The major downside to unlicensed spectrum is that it cannot be managed. Everyone who puts up a device, whether to make money or for access for themselves and others, is at the mercy of others surrounding them. Over time, congestion will degrade every system on an unlicensed channel until none of them function properly. Then someone will decide to illegally add power to their transmitters to break the log jam, and soon there will be less capacity, not more.

Why are so many people working on so many different aspects of broadband instead of working together to meet our goals faster and less expensively? Everyone who has spectrum wants more and those who don’t have it want it. Since we cannot manufacture more spectrum, we need to plan its usage more wisely with an awareness that technology is continuously evolving and not regulate ourselves into a box. We must be smart about how we use our spectrum today and be flexible for the future.

Andrew M. Seybold

See Archived Copy of this COMMENTARY for previous comments.

The FCC is already looking toward the TV broadcast industry as a “donor.” After clearing TV channels 52 to 69 and auctioning most of the spectrum (24 MHz was given to public safety), the FCC is now floating a trial balloon to push broadcasters ever further and take some more spectrum away from them. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) has already opposed this idea and, of course, those who want to use some of the spectrum for unlicensed broadband will not be happy. But I think this is a good place to pick up some additional frequencies in a portion of the spectrum that is ideal for mobile broadband services.

The latest number I have seen is that only 20% of the U.S. population still receives TV transmissions via an outside antenna as opposed to cable and satellite. Some of these people do not have access to cable or satellite (they have to be able to see the sky in an easterly direction) and some have chosen not to pay for cable or satellite service. Many are in rural America, but some are in cities and suburbs. If we do away with over-the-air broadcasting completely, many of these people will lose access to TV. Is it fair to take away a free service we have had for 30 or more years to provide more spectrum for broadband wireless services?

If we took channels 40-51 back, we would have another 66 MHz of spectrum available (each TV channel has 6 MHz of spectrum). If we took channels 20-51 back, we would have 186 MHz of spectrum and would probably be able to provide over-the-air TV services using the lower channels. While 186 MHz is a lot in contrast to what is available today, it is still nowhere near the 700 MHz we are told we really need. Much of the rest of the spectrum would have to come from the government side that is managed by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which controls more spectrum than the FCC. Is 700 MHz the right number? How do we know when we don’t know how efficient our new technologies will be or what customers will want to be able to access on their mobile devices?

Whatever amount of spectrum we steal from somewhere else for broadband-and we will have to steal it since there is no unused spectrum in the United States-it will probably not be enough. We need to understand that even if we had broadband systems using every bit of spectrum that is technologically usable, and even if the technologies had two to three times the capacity they do today, there is no way we would have enough to replace the wired infrastructure. We have what we have and the way the Internet is growing, it appears as though we will always be short of spectrum since demand for wireless broadband, especially video services, keeps growing. Recently, 3UK, the smallest of the network operators in the UK, stated that today 94% of its network traffic is data, up from 15% just four years ago.

More Spectrum, But for Whom?

There is no doubt that we need the spectrum, and we need it sooner rather than later given the growth rate of wireless data services and the fact that more than 40% of all wired Internet traffic is now video. But who will buy it at auction, who will build out the networks, and who will manage them?

I am sure various groups will have ideas for how this spectrum should be allocated. The first will be those who favor unlicensed spectrum. Give it to us, they will say, and we will get more broadband built out for those who really need it and at a price that is more affordable than what we are paying today. Next will be the group that says it wants the spectrum auctioned to companies that can build it out on a regional or nationwide basis. But they don’t want incumbent operators to be able to bid on it, or most of it, and want to make sure the winning bidders are new companies that will come in and challenge the incumbents, driving down the price of broadband access. Internet companies (Google?) might promise free wireless access based on an ad revenue model, some existing TV stations might want to enter the broadband business, and there are probably others.

The incumbent operators already providing broadband services and those networks are carrying more data than ever before, will be the other group that will want access to this “new” spectrum. These operators will say that since they already have the towers, back-end infrastructure, and billing systems in place, they could put this new spectrum into operation faster and more efficiently than any of the other groups.

The Fight Will Be On

Meanwhile, the public safety community is waiting to see what Congress and the FCC will do with its request to re-allocate the D Block to them so they can combine it with their own 5 MHz of broadband spectrum, now licensed to the Public Safety Spectrum Trust (PSST). The FCC will also be putting the finishing touches on its broadband report that is due into the executive branch by February 2010, and meanwhile, the stimulus funds ($7.2 billion) continue to sit in Washington until someone can decide which grants to fund and for how much.

So, we ask, will we get more spectrum, when will we get it, who will be entitled to bid on it, and what will be the build-out requirements? It will be a few years before any of this spectrum can be released and there will be lobbying efforts from a variety of interests. If Congress and the FCC continue to believe that the Internet is the most important technological advancement of all times, the results can be guessed now. The spectrum will be geared toward the Internet community and made available at auction to only companies that do not already have a wireless network in operation. This will make the DC crowd feel great knowing it is spurring more competition. But more competition will result in a market expansion followed within a few years by a market contraction.

Sometimes it is difficult to understand why people think that the more competitors we have the better it is for everyone. The U.S. government seems to want more competitors in the wireless space and keeps pointing to Europe as a leader in technology and openness. In reality, the United States is far ahead of Europe when it comes to competition and pricing. There are some countries that have more broadband penetration than we do, but that is because the government helped make it happen and opened the treasury doors to help pay for it.

What would it cost, today, to build out another complete network across the United States? The guesstimates run from about $8 billion to more than $30 billion in capital expense and $billions more in operating expenses. I have to wonder what the payback period is for a network that costs $15 billion to build and $3 billion a year to run when it is the seventh, eighth, or ninth network in a given area. I guess I must have missed something in my economics classes, where I thought I was taught that in a free market, the number of companies that survive is based on the amount of demand for a service or product, the number of providers of that service or product, how much profit they can make by providing it, and how they treat their customers.

When those who have the ball, and therefore are in charge, look at the U.S. wireless market, they see four nationwide networks and seem to believe there should be six or more. What they are not seeing is the total number of network operators serving a given region. When we include MetroPCS, Leap Wireless, other second and third tier networks, and Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs), the number is not four, it is usually seven or eight, all trying to stay alive with a population base that cannot support that many.

It won’t be any different this time around. The government will expand the number of networks providing services, the market will respond, and some of the networks will be bought or will simply go out of business, leaving their customers stranded. We have been through this before and you would think that we would learn. China, which is already a huge wireless market and has the potential to grow for many years to come, decided last year to REDUCE the number of network operators from six to three. I wonder what China knows that U.S. policymakers don’t.

If you disagree with me and think that enabling more network operators will drive wireless prices down, look at Clearwire and Sprint and their “4G” network. They keep opening new cities but they had fewer new customers sign up last quarter than in the quarter before. And even though there are half-price initial offers, their standard pricing is about the same as everyone else’s. Where are the price reductions caused by this new competition that claims 4G data speeds?

LTE, or even WiMAX-M, will be different. They will be faster and have more capacity, and it will be less expensive to deliver more data with these technologies. But every operator will be installing LTE systems eventually and they will all have the same data speeds. Since we are making sure that all of our networks will be open to any device (with caveats) and any data, what is left for these network operators to use to out-market their competitors? Pricing? Perhaps, but how low can they afford to go before they start losing money? The wireless industry can’t charge extra for checked bags or a bag lunch.

I hope that if the Internet crowd does manage to win some of the new spectrum at auction, it actually builds out its own networks and finally learns what it takes to provide 99.999% reliable service. And if they do actually give away voice and data services and pay for the network with ad revenue, we will learn more about what customers want, what they can get, and what they will tolerate.

The biggest threat to all of us is losing network operators that care about building networks close to 99.999% reliable. You can reduce the cost of a network by $billions if you are willing to build out to 80% reliability, and if this is where we are headed, instead of more and better service, we will get less and poorer service. But as long as it’s free, perhaps we won’t have a right to expect it to work all of the time.

Andrew M. Seybold

See Archived Copy of this COMMENTARY for previous comments.

In many cases, I wonder what, exactly, we have been doing for the past ten or more years-I might write the same article with few changes today. I recently re-read one I wrote for the April 1995 issue of Andrew Seybold’s Outlook on Communications and Computing. The mid-1990s were transition years for us, moving from a focus on Personal Computers in the 1980s to mobile computers and wireless in the 1990s.

At the time I wrote this particular article, the Personal Communications Service (PCS) spectrum was about to be auctioned, public safety was fighting for more radio spectrum and the ability to provide interoperability between agencies, and I believed that the TV industry should fork over some of its channels for other forms of wireless communications. This was before broadband wireless was envisioned and before 3G technologies were practical, when we were using voice services and under 20 Kbps of data for our mobile requirements.

It was before the RIM BlackBerry when we had three data networks in the United States trying to figure out how to promote wireless data services. It was a time when the consumer was discounted as a customer for wireless data services and only business customers were important. Needless to say, we have come a long way since then. However, many of the points I made in this article are still being considered today, and in many cases we are no nearer to having answers to our wireless problems than we were thirteen years ago.

I thought you might enjoy going back in time with me. I have one copy of every newsletter I have written since 1985, and hopefully someday I will be able to have them digitized and up on the web. There is a lot of information in them, a lot of history, and some bad calls I’ve made over the years. I thought the IBM/BellSouth Simon would be a real hit, and I did not understand the importance of the first Palm device.

On the other side of the coin, I did understand that CDPD was not the be-all-end-all technology it was purported to be, I did not believe WAP browsers would be the way to access the mobile Internet, and I did recognize that RIM and its BlackBerry email device would change the world. All-in-all, I’ve been more right than wrong.

Times have changed since I wrote the following article-or have they?

Background

The Spectrum as a Resource

I would like to amplify a point I made about spectrum in last month’s Per­sonal Communications Services (PCS) article. The following discussion was prompted by reports that some within the Republican Party are organizing to dismantle the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), citing that there is no longer a need for a governmental organization to regulate spectrum and our communications services. I hope that those who agree with them will take the time to find out more about the overall workings of the FCC, the issues involved in managing the limited resource that is the radio spectrum, and the need for some form of regulation.

First, it is important to understand that radio spectrum is a finite resource. It has always been finite in size. Because of advances in technology, more of the spectrum has become usable over the past fifty years or so, but it is still finite.

As can be seen in Figure 1, the radio spectrum is a sub-set of the Electro­magnetic Spectrum and it has finite boundaries, as defined by the laws of phys­ics. It is not possible to expand this spectrum beyond its current boundaries. It is only possible to make better use of the spectrum contained within these boundaries. Inside this band that stretches from 30 Hertz (Hz) to 300 Giga­hertz (GHz), we must provide for all of our wireless communications needs.

Further, due to the characteristics of the radio spectrum, much of what is available is not suitable for “normal” types of wireless communications ser­vices. There are a number of reasons for this. The most important are the characteristics of a radio wave at a given frequency. The lower the frequency, the longer the wave. The longer the wave, the further that wave will travel over the earth and the more likely it is to “bounce” off cloud and other layers of atmosphere to travel still longer distances. AM broadcast signals that are in the 500 to 1300-Kilohertz (KHz) band travel considerably farther than the signals of an FM broadcast station that operates in the 88 to 108-Megahertz (MHz) band.

For these reasons, the type of wireless service and the distance that needs to be covered generally determines the frequency range of the service. Another factor that has come into play is that as technology has improved, additional portions of this spectrum have become available for use. For example, in the early days of two-way radio communications for public service and business radio, the available spectrum was a 20-MHz section in the 30 to 50-MHz range. Over time, as technologies were developed, additional spectrum was allocated for this usage in the 150-170-MHz range, then in the 450-470- MHz range and, finally, in the 800-900-MHz range.

New Technologies, New Bands

As each improvement in technology made possible the use of more of the higher end of the radio spectrum, the Federal Communications Commission allocated its usage and determined which type of service was entitled to how much. The FCC had to balance the need for public access broadcasting (television and radio) with the need for public safety and business two-way radio usage, amateur radio needs, and public radio access (mobile phones, etc.). This task was complicated by the fact that when a given region of spectrum was technically accessible, federal government agencies had first crack at the allocation. The organization that represents federal agencies, the National Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA), is permitted to lop off portions of radio spectrum for “government use” before passing what is left over to the FCC to allocate for use by other groups.

Because spectrum allocations were made over time, users do not have single chunks of contiguous spectrum. Rather, they have been allocated a number of smaller chunks located at various points in the radio spectrum. Television channels are a good example of this. The first TV channels to be allocated (2 through 6) were in the 54 to 88-MHz band (Very High Frequency, or VHF).

However, before the television industry experienced a demand for more channels, the FM broadcast radio band was established just above TV channel 6, and the commercial aircraft industry needed and was allocated channels above the FM broadcast band. Amateur radio operators have been experimenting with radio communications for many years and, in many cases, developed new technologies. They needed higher spectrum and were allocated bands above the aircraft systems (144-148 MHz). And public safety and business users asked for, and were allocated, more channels in the 150 to 174-MHz range. By the time the TV industry proved that it needed additional channels, the spectrum allocated to channels 7 through 13 wound up in the 174 to 216-MHz range.

Today’s Lay of the Land

Today with the wireless spectrum fully allocated up to the 300-GHz range, frequency allocations resemble a patchwork quilt with pieces for government usage, public access, public safety, business, and public wireless services. The last allocation of spectrum for Personal Communications Services (PCS) required that other users of this spectrum be relocated. Until the PCS auctions, this band of spectrum was used for point-to-point microwave transmissions. With the new technologies available today, this same spectrum can now be used for handheld voice and data systems. Thus the FCC reviewed the spectrum allocations and with some not-so-gentle “nudges” from various lobbying organizations, it decided to reallocate the 2-GHz band for PCS and to move the existing users to higher bands.

Spectrum from 800 MHz to 2 GHz is now allocated heavily in favor of public access for the end user of wireless voice and data services. A total of 180 MHz of spectrum is allocated for cellular and PCS. These allocations are enough spectrum for a minimum of four service providers in each of the major areas now covered by cellular communications. In addition to this allocation, there are others in the same band for one- and two-way messaging systems, dispatch radio systems such as that run by Nextel, and some spectrum is reserved for public safety and other two-way radio users.

Abundance and Shortage

While the general public now has an abundance of spectrum for its use, the two-way radio community, including public safety agencies, is still strapped for channels. The FCC and several organizations such as the Associated Public Safety Communications Officers (APCO) are working on proposals to provide better access to the spectrum for their users. Currently, there is a critical shortage of available radio spectrum for them. Further, because of how allocations were made over the years, many agencies within the same geographic area are not able to use their communications systems to talk among themselves. They have to rely on the use of a second radio in each vehicle or on a dispatcher to relay information between agencies. This, of course, limits their ability to provide emergency services in a timely fashion-a situation that can, and has, resulted in needless delays.

While we, the end users, are busy considering how to use the spectrum that Washington has been so willing to make available to us (if we pay for it), there are hundreds of public safety agencies that are not able to obtain even a single new channel in the band in which they now operate. Many of our public safety dispatch systems are overloaded, and many would like to add data capabilities to their systems. But obtaining even a single new radio channel for such use is either not possible, or requires years of waiting for one to become available.

The Reason

I have taken the time and effort to present this information because we all need to be aware of the fact that, even though the wireless spectrum seems to many to be an unlimited resource, it is severely limited. Unless this resource is used wisely, it will not be available for the applications that are the most important. Today, we do not have to choose between being able to sit at the beach and hold a full-motion video conference and being able to dispatch a paramedic unit to save a life on that same beach. However, if we continue to treat radio spectrum as an infinite resource, we may, in fact, have to begin making such decisions.

Maybe the FCC as it is now structured, and as its directives are now worded, is not in the best position to allocate and administer the ether, but some form of regulation and control of this resource is necessary to ensure that all users have access to some spectrum. For years we have been working under the premise that all of the potential users of this resource will get some of it-but not as much as they may want or feel they need. Suddenly, we are able to obtain almost as much spectrum as we want as long as we are willing to write the federal government a big check.

I believe that it is important for all of us to realize that we are dealing with a finite resource and that there must be a way to determine the best uses for it. One way to get more spectrum (or, more appropriately, to make more of this limited resource available) is to look back at previous allocations and see what could be accomplished by reallocating some of the spectrum for other uses. Just as the FCC reallocated existing microwave spectrum to PCS and has or­dered the relocation of existing users, spectrum currently being held for other uses could be released to form a pool of available channels.

Reallocation

An example of such a reallocation of resources is the recent ruling by the federal government to force the NTIA to release some of the spectrum that has been allocated to federal government agencies so it can be used by the private sector. However, there is another area of spectrum that has, thus far, remained out of bounds. This spectrum is where the upper UHF TV channels are allocated. Channels 7 through 13 were allocated in a different portion of the spectrum than channels 2-6, as were the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) TV channels 14 through 69. A few years ago, the FCC did reallocate UHF chan­nels 70 to 83 and made them available to special service TV (such as educa­tional TV broadcasting), and permitted them to be shared by land mobile radio users (two-way radio systems).

The Television Industry

However, there remain many channels that were allocated for but are not being used for TV systems. If the FCC reallocated UHF TV channels 40 through 69, it would free up an additional 174 MHz of spectrum for other uses. This spectrum is in the range of 626 to 806 MHz and is ideal for two-way radio and wireless communications. This 174 MHz of spectrum could be made available simply by moving the few TV stations using it to other locations within the channel 14-39 range. The cost of such moves could be borne by the new users. (There is already a precedent for this. The new PCS providers have to pay to move existing microwave users.) The cost of moving TV stations would run into millions of dollars as compared to the cost of moving microwave users, which will run into multi-millions of dollars.

How Much Spectrum Is This?

With today’s technologies, each of the 29 TV channels could be used for up to 240 two-way radio channels or cellular phone channels. Since radio waves at these frequencies do not travel long distances, it is possible to re-use these channels across the nation without experiencing interference problems. For example, allocating ten of these channels for public safety use would provide a nationwide pool of 2,400 channels-all of which could be divided into na­tional, regional, and local-use channels so that every emergency vehicle in the entire nation would be able to communicate with every other emergency ve­hicle.

The balance of these channels could be used for a variety of purposes such as more bandwidth for private access, more two-way radio systems, or whatever.

In any case, since the trend in this country is toward more and better cable TV systems and small satellite TV systems, it appears as though these channels will probably be vacated and should become available for reallocation. A strong lobby led by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) is preventing such reallocations today. The NAB has been able to hang onto these channels even though they have remained largely unused for years. It is time to tell the NAB to either buy them at auction, as the PCS vendors did, or to relinquish them for other uses.

Final Comments

As we rush toward a world where each of us has an individual phone number that works at home, on the road, and at the office, and as we hear promises that in time these services will be expanded to include data services and full-motion video, it is important that we understand that we are making use of a resource that is finite in scope. And even with the new technologies on the horizon that will enable us do more with this spectrum, it is still a finite resource. As such, it needs to be protected and doled out (no pun intended) in a judicious manner and not just because it can raise money for the government.

I hope that as we move forward we will recognize that there are other uses for radio spectrum than simply being able to call home from the beach. There is already demand for spectrum well beyond what is available today and we must have someone looking at the overall requirements and planning to see that everyone’s needs are met. We must also have some form of governmental body that is responsible for allocating this finite resource. To not have someone overseeing how we use this spectrum would be short-sighted and could result in chaos further down the road.

Sensible administration of the spectrum can be achieved. I believe that, for the most part, it is being accomplished by the organization that has been charged with this task. We do not need to abolish the FCC. Rather, we need to give the FCC autonomy as an agency so that members of congress cannot bring undue pressure to bear, as has been the case in the past and as is the case today. [End]

In Conclusion

I hope you have enjoyed his walk down memory lane. I have many more articles I have written and perhaps I will resurrect and publish a few more of them this year as we head into our 20^th anniversary Wireless Dinner in the spring. I cannot help but remember all of the sponsors and people who stood up on the stage with me and welcomed our guests at these dinners. Many of them are no longer around, many have retired and, I am sure, are astounded by the leaps we have made. One thing I am concerned about is that those who follow us have an appreciation of where we started on this journey and how far we have come. I am concerned that they will think of the Internet and worldwide email capabilities as having been around forever and assume that wireless has always meant voice, text, MMS, and broadband.

When those of us who were thankful to have wireless email at 8 Kbps are gone and those who remain expect it at 25 Mbps, will they appreciate how far we came in how short a time? Will they understand that we still have a lot to learn and do?

Andrew M. Seybold

See Archived Copy of this COMMENTARY for previous comments.

After listening to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s speech at the Brookings Institute a couple of weeks ago that described how the FCC will be publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that will embrace its six “key” net neutrality concerns, I began to get nervous about the outcome of this rulemaking for wired Internet providers, wireless operators, and the public safety community. In his second speech, delivered at the CTIA show in San Diego last week, he did say that the FCC understands that the wireless Internet is different from the wired Internet and, therefore, the rules should reflect these differences. While this may have come as good news to many within the wireless community, I have to admit that I am not all that sure how the ruling will turn out. The comments are yet to be received and there is sure to be a lot of lobbying before the Commissioners, who are, after all, attorneys and not technology experts, come to their conclusions. 

My concerns are that those in the position to make the rules that will affect “The Internet”—wired and wireless—do not understand the differences between wired and wireless access. Just as importantly, there are also implications for wired Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that may not be readily apparent and even more implications for wireless network operators.

What Is Net Neutrality?

This question will be answered differently by different people, but my understanding is that Net Neutrality is designed to provide a level playing field for all who want to use the Internet. My neighbor and I have the same access “rights” as everyone else, and the rulemaking is intended to protect our rights. However, in concept, Net Neutrality seems to imply unlimited and unfettered access to the Internet regardless of the means of access.

Before we go any further, we really need to look at the three pieces of the Internet. The first piece is the access, or the on and off ramps provided by ISPs—a telco offering DSL or fiber access, a Wi-Fi network, or a wide-area wireless network. The next piece is the back-end system made up of thousands of miles of wire, fiber, and microwave that serve all of these on and off ramps. The final piece is the connection between the Internet and the website. Most of the larger websites have multiple access routes to and from the Internet with multiple servers, sometimes spread out around the world, that are scaled to handle the traffic directed to their site.

When I look at any wired or wireless network, I look to see where the choke points are. The connection from the user to the Internet is provided by an ISP that controls the capacity and speed provided to the customer and is, therefore, the first choke point in the end-to-end communications circuit that provides access to information on the Internet.

For example, an 802.11N router in a coffee shop theoretically provides data speeds of up to 54 Mbps and sufficient capacity to handle multiple customers at the same time. However, the connection from the router to the Internet is probably a T-1 line with a maximum data speed of 1.54 Mbps. In this case, the T-1 line is the choke point. Regardless of how much speed is available via the Wi-Fi router and regardless of how many people are using it to access the Internet, the maximum available throughput is only 1.54 Mbps.

Each of the three pieces of the Internet puzzle can be viewed as a choke point. We have all heard of websites becoming overloaded with traffic or suffering from a denial of service attack. In this case, the website itself is the choke point. And we have all experienced varying speeds in our own access to the Internet. Using cable as an example, customers share the cable’s bandwidth with all of their neighbors. The more people using the cable at the same time to access the Internet, and what they are using it for (email, chat, searches, audio and video downloads and uploads), affects the capacity and speed available for the others who are sharing the same bandwidth. The cable can become a choke point when there is a lot of activity. If you have a DSL line and you pay for 3 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up, you might think you will always be able to connect at a data speed of 3 Mbps. However, all of the DSL circuits for a certain area are aggregated to reach this speed and are connected to the Internet through the ISP’s system. Depending on usage at any particular time, the DSL connection or ISP can be a choke point.

These speed and capacity issues can be managed to some degree. The first type of management is through data speed and capacity price plans. My DSL service provider offers three different speeds at three different prices. With the lowest tier, my on and off ramp will be slower than if I opt for the higher, more expensive tier. But my ISP can only mange its own on and off ramps and it cannot manage the data once it leaves its system and is routed onto the main Internet. You might think of this as an on ramp to a freeway that has metering lights to regulate the flow of traffic and give everyone a chance to merge onto the main highway. But if the road is already congested and the traffic is not moving ahead of you, even when your turn comes to merge, you cannot do so quickly and easily so you have to join the already crowded lanes and move forward more slowly

Many of my concerns have to do with managing the information flow onto and off of the Internet, which, using pricing, data limits, or a combination of the two, can be managed  to the degree that all customers are treated the same. For example, if a cable company offers data rates of 3 Mbps and during peak times this rate drops to 1 Mbps or lower for one subscriber in a given area, it should drop for all of the other subscribers as well—this, to me, is managed Net Neutrality. The first one on a system should not be able to hog all of the bandwidth, leaving little or none for the other customers. The way I interpret the FCC Chairman’s Net Neutrality statements, it might become more difficult for any ISP to manage its customers’ traffic and make sure there is fair and equitable distribution. Several cable companies have already been taken to task because they have used speed and capacity as ways to slow down data hogs on their networks so the rest of their customers can receive a decent level of service.

Predictions about running out of Internet capacity are real and should be a concern to all. Google stated last year that 40% of all Internet traffic is now video, the advent of the iPhone has increased the amount of Internet traffic that is wireless, and the curve chart that shows capacity versus traffic is indicating that capacity will fall behind demand in 2012. Many people tell me this won’t happen because those who build the digital roads that are the Internet (not the on and off ramps) will continue to expand the capacity. I am not at all sure this is a correct assumption since, for the most part, they have been relegated to dumb pipes or bit haulers and there is very little incentive for them to build more capacity when the return on investment is so low. The Internet itself is not managed per se. It is a complex network of networks, routing packets of data in many different directions around the world. If demand exceeds capacity, there is nothing anyone will be able to do when it comes to managing who retains full access and whose access becomes limited for periods of time. Managing access is one thing, but if you cannot manage the main arteries that make up the Internet, there will be issues for all of us. If the FCC limits the degree to which ISPs can regulate their own access to the Internet, the situation could get worse more quickly.

Wireless Internet

There are a number of differences between wired and wireless access to the Internet. DSL, cable, modems, and other wired access devices are used only to move data onto and off of the Internet. Wireless networks are used to carry voice, SMS, MMS, and other forms of information in addition to moving data onto and off of the Internet. Managing wireless bandwidth is not only about managing access to the Internet, it is also about managing bandwidth for all of the other services and making sure that all wireless customers in a given area have as much access as possible. You may remember that when we were basically a wired voice telephone world, circuit overloads were commonplace on Mother’s Day and other holidays. Today there are still circuit overloads, but they are occurring at cell sites or within cell sectors and they affect most forms of wireless communications.

For the most part, our current digital voice technologies use different portions of spectrum than broadband data, but as we move into a more 3G and 4G environment, at some point, voice will become data bytes and will travel in the same spectrum as data. This, too, will increase the traffic on the broadband portion of our networks adding a new dimension to the issue of Net Neutrality. Voice packets, unlike data packets, must arrive within milliseconds of each other at the recipient’s end so the conversation can be put together and sound like voice, so voice services will have to have priority over data services. Yes, I know that voice packets don’t take up much bandwidth, however, if you have a large number of voice users within a single cell sector, you may, in fact, have to throttle back data capacity and manage not only the data portion but all of the various methods of communications that share the same bandwidth. This will make network management more complex and more necessity.

Some seem to believe that we will have enough spectrum, or that we already have enough spectrum, so meeting the Net Neutrality rules won’t be an issue. But just like wired access, wireless access must be managed, and it must be managed better. There are more choke points for wireless access to the Internet: the data capacity of a given cell sector, the backhaul from that cell site to the wireless operator’s network, and the connection between the wireless network and the Internet. There is a lot that must be managed, and wireless network operators must be allowed to use different types of tools than their wired counterparts. If not, the Internet as we know it today will not survive into the future.

GoogleNet

This brings me to “GoogleNet,” the title of this Commentary. I have to admit that my mind sometimes takes a leap to another level, and in this case it certainly did. Google owns a LOT of dark fiber—fiber that is in place but unused, lying in the ground just waiting to be lit up. This fiber is not merely more on and off ramps, it is empty highways. A decade ago, there was an overabundance of fiber and Google started its buying spree. Today it does not take much to imagine a parallel network that could be assembled from this fiber and put into operation fairly quickly. Imagine a new Internet that is basically owned by Google and where Google makes the rules. We could choose to stay on the existing, overcrowded Internet, with its Net Neutrality rules hindering network management, or to pay a few extra dollars a month or put up with some advertisements to access GoogleNet and the world it chooses to make available to us.

If we no longer permit ISPs and wireless operators to manage the traffic on their systems, and allow anyone and everyone to do as they please, perhaps this scenario is not too farfetched. Perhaps this is even the real end game in the upcoming Net Neutrality fight.

In closing, I’d like to point out that if Net Neutrality, as defined by the FCC Chairman, requires networks to be completely open and accessible to everyone, a Police Department using broadband services on a commercial wireless network would not be entitled to priority access even during a time of a major incident. No wonder the Public Safety Community wants its own network!

Andrew M. Seybold

See Archived Copy of this COMMENTARY for previous comments.