Home automation has been just around the corner for a very long time now. Over the past twenty years at least a dozen companies have come up with the vision that their operating system will be the one to make this happen. It even reached the point a number of years ago where a company (which one escapes me now and I can’t find anything about it on You Tube), ran a commercial where a repairman showed up at a house, rang the doorbell, and told the person answering the door that he was there to fix the refrigerator. “I did not call anyone to fix it,” was the answer and the repairman said, “No ma’am your refrigerator called us to report a problem.”

Over the years a number of software companies have come up with the idea of extending their operating system to office devices such as copiers, phones, and fax machines, and into the home. Your refrigerator, coffee pot, TV, audio, lights, and surveillance cameras would all be controlled by a single operating system, enabling you to use your wireless device and/or an Internet connection to make adjustments regardless of where you are, to be notified if someone has entered your house, and to make sure you turned off the stove or closed the garage door.

Microsoft with its BOB product, Sun Microsystems, IBM, Apple, and others have been here before. Home automation is supposed to be a big deal and make our lives easier. However, all of this costs money—sometimes a lot of money if you are not willing or able to do some of the installation yourself. Even if you are, many of the solutions offered today are not designed with ease of use on mind, but by engineers who expect us to be programming experts.

The adoption of smart home components and devices is very low in the United States. Eric is right that the vision is that our homes will become fully automated and we will be able to talk to our electronics and appliances and they will be able to talk to us no matter where we are. In our Wireless University presentations (the next session is the day prior to the CTIA show in New Orleans), we have had a section on wireless home automation for a number of years but the technology has been slow to develop and even slower on the uptake. In one of my sessions I wrote about the Chumby clock radio that is connected to your home Wi-Fi network to enable it to display lots of useful information such as weather, traffic reports, stock market reports, and other things you might find of interest as you awaken.

I then took the premise of the Chumby to its next logical conclusions. First would be the addition of heater and air-conditioning controls and the ability to control your coffeepot. The idea would be that if you set the alarm for 7 a.m., the Chumby would turn up your heater, say fifteen minutes before that, and start your coffeepot at the same time so when you got out of bed the house would be warm and the coffee freshly made. Next would be the connection of the Chumby to be able to interact with weather and real-time traffic reporting. In this case you would enter your route to work and the Chumby would check on weather conditions and traffic patterns, and then adjust your alarm plus or minus a few minutes depending on conditions, and that would also cause the heater and coffeepot to reset to new times.

Perhaps Google with all of its resources can finally make some progress in the home automation area. There is already a trend to buy HD TVs that include Internet connectivity, Google TV, Roku, Apple TV, and Microsoft TV. Others are providing an option to our cable and satellite services with streaming video over the Internet, enabling all kinds of additional services, AND we are now able to watch TV and movies on our wireless devices regardless of where we are. Eric seems to think that Wi-Fi in the home is what should control everything but there are already a number of other personal-area network technologies and devices on the market that may be better suited to some of the automation control functions.

A year or so ago, one of my clients was working on a device for the home that would include wide-area wireless, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and one of the other short-range wireless technologies used to control devices in the home. I do not have a clue as to the status of this type of device but it makes sense. It is a femtocell, Wi-Fi router rolled into one, it has access via Bluetooth, and it can act as the control hub for all of the lower-powered RF-controlled devices (or even signals over power line). Further, it could bridge between all of the technologies when needed.

BUT—There Is Always a But

Convincing people to embrace all of this technology in the home is the real challenge. As Eric and many others before him have stated, the vision is there. The real issue is how to make it easy to install and use in the average home and how to make it a must-have addition to the home instead of, “Gee that would be nice someday.” Let’s look at what is on the market today and then discuss how it could perhaps be made less expensive, easier to install, and easier to set up and operate.

For this example I am using the products in the Smarthome catalog (Vol. 126, Summer of 2011). Let’s start with the automation of home lighting. The section of the catalog that covers the options starts on page 14 and runs through page 50. Listed are a number of competing technologies that all do essentially the same thing: Enable you to control your indoor and outdoor lights either by selecting a scene with a control box or by programming a computer or other standalone device to automatically change lighting at given times of the day or night.

The oldest of the technologies listed is the X-10 control series. X-10 has been around for years and I have used it since the mid-1990s to control devices in my home and to turn on my outside lights at dusk and later to turn them off. The X-10 system sends signals over your AC power lines to control the various devices. One of the first things you will have to do is to buy a device that will enable the signals to cross over your 220 VAC main service so the signals are available on both legs of your 110 VAC wiring. When I first installed this system I had to use capacitors across the 220 main and install them in the breaker panel—not a job for the feint of heart. Today, for about $70 you can buy a device designed to plug into a 220 VAC box (usually in the laundry room for your dryer) and your dryer plugs into the box. The wall switches cost between $10 and $15 each because the technology is old and being replaced. You can buy a dual outlet, one part of which is X-10 controlled and one that is hot all of the time, and it also runs about $10. A manual controller for the system will run between $10 and $50 depending on the number of devices you want to control, and a computerized system will run about $100. The system requires that you replace each switch you want to control and the wiring is non-standard and takes someone familiar with AC wiring to get it done right.

Zwave

Next up is a fairly new technology known as Zwave. According to the Zwave Alliance, this is an RF technology that uses low-powered radio signals to control things such as lighting, door locks, security and alarms, window shades, thermostats, and more. It is based on a mesh network so that each device can repeat the control signal to other devices, which is a very efficient way to extend the range of the system in larger houses and offices.

Looking at the devices in the catalog, the most basic on-off light switch is $50 and one with a dimmer is about $80. Zwave companies also make wall switches that can control up to eight different sets of lights and these starts at $115. Control devices start at $100 for a table-mounted device up to several hundred for a computer-controlled device that will turn devices on and off based on time or on sunset and sunrise. They also need to be wired in to replace existing switches, and special switches are needed to control florescent lights and appliances.

UPB Systems

UPB stands for Universal Powerline Bus and it is a newer type of control signal over the power lines in your home. One caution here and with some of the other systems as well: At each location you want to put a switch there must be a neutral power lead. In some instances your house will have some switches where they did not run the neutral lead and you won’t be able to automate these switches. The cost of a single on-off light switch is $68 and the prices go up from there. Control devices run the gamut from a simple table-top box ($90) to computer-controlled systems $200 and up. Once again these devices require that you remove your existing switch and replace it with one of these. And you have to be careful about the type of lights you are controlling since each switch is designed to operate a specific type of lighting and special switches are needed for 3-way circuits.

Insteon Products

Insteon is the brand name developed by or for Smarthome. It is a combination system that will control existing -10 controllers as well as Insteon devices that are RF AND signaling over power line controlled in what it calls a dual mesh network. This is the system I have been using to replace my X-10 system. While it works well, it also requires a neutral power lead in each switch box and it is expensive. Each wall switch runs anywhere from $60 to $85 or more depending on the type of lights you want to control.

Insteon makes a host of products, including appliance modules and wall switches that control multiple light sources from the same panel and/or indicate the status of a different type of device. For example, I have the system wired so I can tell when the garage door is open because it lights one of the squares on the multi-switch panel when it is open. You can purchase door locks that can be opened via Insteon, download an app to control the devices from your iPad, iPhone, or other smartphone, or over the Internet, and you can program the system via your computer.

There are a couple of caveats here. One of the computer control systems requires that your computer be connected via a USB connection to the Insteon controller. Another more expensive device lets you program the controller from a computer, an iPad, or whatever, and not have to keep it connected to the machine. This is what I opted for and it is connected to my home LAN via Wi-Fi. I found that I had to give the controller box a static IP address but that is easy enough to do. Setting up the devices to be found on the network is not an easy task. If the device is not recognized automatically, and in my experience that is most of the time, there is a two-step process that requires an action at the wall switch and another action at the controller, not exactly easy for one person to install. The other issue I have with this system is that whoever wrote the interface software needs a lesson in KISS (Keep it simple, stupid!). It is difficult to set up, harder to change once it is set up, and it is not at all clear what steps you need to go through. I am still struggling with some of the nuances of the program.

Home Automation

When we remodeled our house and added a second story in 2003, I thought I was being smart. I ran a bundle of cables to each room, and in some cases to multiple locations in each room. In the bundle were two RG 6 TV cables and two Cat-5 cables. I also ran speaker wire to each room for whole-house audio (with individual volume controls in each room) and redundantly as it turned out, I also wired the house for an intercom system. Today, if you want to distribute HD around the house over wire you need at least two Cat-5 cables to do so, so I am short at least one Cat 5 in every room. I did run empty smirf tubing in some of the house for additional wiring because I knew that no matter how well I planned it, I would not have enough.

My goal now is to experiment with wireless options for all of the wires running around my house and replace everything with wireless devices at some point but the cost is still too high and the range of some of the systems is still not sufficient to accomplish all of that.

The Bottom Line

Eric Schmidt has a great vision. I am not a big fan of Android because I think it is the easiest of all operating systems to attack, but that doesn’t really matter. What does matter in this case is that regardless of what operating system resides in any device or set of devices, unless the actual task of adding automation to a home or business is made easier and the cost of the components come down it will remain a niche market.

Perhaps Eric is right on one thing though. Wi-Fi might be the way to distribute audio/video and even control signals. However, if the devices such as wall switches and other controls cost $50 or more each, and need to be installed by a professional or a homeowner with some basic wiring skills, it does not matter in the least which technology or operating system is used. Think about it this way: How many people would pay $50 per switch and several hundred for controls to keep from having to turn on a light switch when they walked into a room? How many people want to be welcomed home by their TV being on?

It would be really neat to have the house preheated and certain lights already on and it would be great if I could use my smartphone to disable my alarm system (you do set yours when you go out, right?). It certainly would be great if I could know if someone had broken in, but frankly I would rather have the police notified and find out after I got home!

There are only a few ways that home automation will really take off. The first is to make it easier all around, to make it more affordable, and to make it a must-have. The second is to build it into new homes as they are constructed. The issue here is whether the builder can charge a premium for the house because of whole-house automation or can the builder even cover the costs of installing this type of automation? So far the answer is no in both cases.

So while it is nice to visualize the future and to predict that Android will someday run everything electronic we touch or that works for us, there are practical impediments to this vision becoming a reality. A box of ten wall switches at home Depot is about $10 while ten wireless switches could cost me $600. Doing the math is easy no matter what operating system is used.

Andrew M. Seybold

This year that was the AT&T/T-Mobile merger agreement. Unfortunately, AT&T has now thrown in the towel on this merger. Both the FCC and the DOJ claim that this merger would cause wireless pricing to go up and would stifle innovation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Meanwhile, it is rumored that Dish Network has expressed an interest in T-Mobile if the AT&T deal falls apart. It is clear that in today’s wireless environment T-Mobile is at a disadvantage not only as the fourth nationwide network operator but also because of its lack of sufficient spectrum to compete in the LTE space. Spectrum is the currency of wireless, and is the driving force behind mergers and acquisitions.

Meanwhile, AT&T still has to obtain approval for its purchase of the Qualcomm 700-MHz spectrum and is busy rolling out its own LTE network to compete with the Verizon network, which is being deployed quickly. While Verizon has a nationwide license for 22 MHz of spectrum in the 700-MHz band, it is buying more spectrum as it builds out its system. Recently Verizon acquired the spectrum holdings of a number of cable companies. This is important for several reasons. First, it gives Verizon more spectrum for LTE services in large portions of the nation. Second, part of the deal is a resale agreement with the cable companies so they will be able to resell wireless voice and data services on the Verizon network.

These spectrum/reselling deals also affect Clearwire and Sprint going forward. Over the years, Sprint has partnered with cable providers time and time again, and many of them have resale agreements in place with Sprint and/or Clearwire. As the cable providers move over to Verizon to provide services, this wholesale income will be lost to Sprint and Clearwire, and it takes the cable companies off the table for LightSquared (see below), which is busy signing wholesale agreements with more than thirty companies when in fact LightSquared does not even have a network in place and may not receive FCC approval to build out a terrestrial network on its satellite spectrum.

LightSquared is playing Washington just as Nextel did a number of years ago. LightSquared is busy signing up resellers of its proposed LTE spectrum so it can show those in DC that there is a demand for smaller companies that normally cannot step up and bid in the spectrum auctions and, in my view, they are making grandiose claims about the number of new jobs that will be created and the amount of money that will flow back into the economy. LightSquared is doing all of this because it is not faring well on the technology front. The latest test results show that LightSquared would still interfere with GPS receivers, and I believe that it is not possible to build a terrestrial system on its spectrum that would not have a negative impact on the GPS community—an impact that could cost lives and property loss. To me, even the chance of this interference is not tolerable.

The FCC has promised to find 500 MHz of new (reassigned) spectrum that can be auctioned for broadband services. It now appears as though Congress will adjourn for the year without passing any spectrum bills. This means that the spectrum the FCC has now that could be auctioned quickly won’t be. It also means that, once again, the Public Safety community is not receiving the spectrum it needs. It also means that new jobs that the construction of a nationwide Public Safety broadband network would bring will not be happening, and that the final recommendation of the 911 commission to provide Public Safety with interoperable communications systems will not be realized this year, more than ten years after 911.

On the LTE front, the fact that both Sprint and Clearwire have thrown in the WiMAX towel and are moving toward LTE is good not only for these two networks but for the industry as well. With more LTE networks being built, pricing for devices and services should fall over time, even though the Sprint and Clearwire systems will be on different portions of the spectrum than AT&T’s or Verizon’s systems. It is interesting to note here that while we finally have a worldwide standard for wireless broadband in the form of LTE, at the present time it will be deployed on 42 different portions of the spectrum. This means a worldwide standard technology but no worldwide devices. Over time it is hoped that LTE will relocate to spectrum that is common around the world but this will take years if not decades to accomplish. In the meantime, it appears as though HSPA+ will be the common data standard for world (or almost-world) capable devices.

Devices

Another great year for Apple to be sure. The introduction of the iPad 2 and the iPhone 4GS kept it growing and well in the black. Android is gaining ground, or by some accounts has passed Apple in the number of devices available, while RIM continues to slip and has put off its new operating system until late in 2012. Tablets are still hot, and some of them, including the Kindle Fire, are giving Apple a run for its money, and those competing directly with the iPad continue to make small gains. Companies such as Amazon that are not setting themselves up to be iPad killers but rather can present their products in terms of meeting the needs of customers are having better luck in the market. It will be interesting to see how Ultrabooks stack up and if they will take some of the steam out of the hot tablet marketplace. My view is that they won’t have much of an impact but they could continue to erode the laptop market.

The number of new smartphones being introduced into the market is astounding. It seems as though every day one network or another is announcing yet another smartphone, and we have not yet seen the Windows 8 entries. You have to wonder how all of these different devices can survive, and if the life of a smartphone is now so short that the quantities of any given product are a lot smaller than the companies would like to see. I don’t see any slowdown in new products and expect even more smartphones to be introduced during CES in early January. Perhaps with all of these new phones coming into the market we will see some price reductions, at least one can hope.

One thing this industry seems to like to do is to dub years as “the year of…” e.g., the year of LTE, the year of mobile payments, etc. In reality, there is a lot of work being done with mobile payments across the industry but there is still a long way to go. Diverse types of mobile payments are being rolled out and experimented with and partnerships are being formed. Near Field Communications (NFC) systems seem to be gaining steam as well as others. I am still concerned about the security issues with carrying a phone with NFC embedded in it. I don’t think we have a handle on how secure or unsecure these devices are, nor do we have a clue, at this point, about how vulnerable the Android OS is. At this point, caution should be the operative word for all these different types of mobile payment technologies as well as Android itself.

Network Capacity

During the past year I have written many articles about data demand and how network operators are dealing with it. Broadband service is spreading rapidly around the world and networks are becoming more congested. Reports out of both Europe and Korea during this past year have also pointed out that many software developers are making use of the broadband signaling channel for data updates and that this type of usage is placing a strain on the signaling channels. The signaling channel is vital to the success of wireless. If you are trying to make a voice call, receive a voice call, or start a data session, your device must be able to communicate with the network and this is accomplished via the signaling channel. If the signaling channel is being heavily used for data updates you may not be able to tell the network you want to access it.

The other thing about network capacity that seems to escape many people is the fact that it is not citywide capacity that matters to customers but rather the capacity within the cell sector where they are located when trying to use the network for voice and/or data services. There are several important points when it comes to cell sector capacity. First, of course, is the total capacity of the single cell sector, then how many customers are trying to access voice and data services within that sector at any one time, how many other cells provide overlapping coverage in some of the areas covered by the sector, and how much traffic is being sent over the signaling channels (see above).

If you are the only person within that cell sector then you have access to all of the bandwidth provided. However, if there are a number of users within the same cell sector, you will be sharing the total capacity of that sector with the others. If several users are watching streaming video feeds rather than simply making calls or surfing the Internet, the capacity will be lower for all of the other users since streaming video is continuous use of some of the capacity. If the sector becomes overloaded the result is dropped calls, very slow data rates, or the inability to connect to the network. Network operators are constantly monitoring their networks and making changes, sometimes on the fly, in order to increase capacity in a given area. They sometimes assign users to other cell sectors, sometimes change the tilt of the antennas, or by other means, but the bottom line is that each cell sector has a finite capacity. Also, the further you are away from the center of a cell sector the slower your data rate will be, and at the edge of the cell, even with LTE the data rates can be less than 500 Kbps.

Conclusions

2011 saw yet another increase in wireless broadband demand from tablets and from the increased number of smartphones being purchased and used on the networks. Streaming video has begun to really take a toll on network capacity and the network operators are doing the best they can to handle the demand and manage their networks in the most efficient way. Spectrum is a finite resource and each network operator has a limited amount of spectrum available. Although the FCC has pledged to “find” another 500 MHz of spectrum for broadband use, its ability to auction even the spectrum it has available (AWS-2 and 3 for example) was hampered by the in-action of Congress. There are several provisions both in standalone bills and as part of other bills that were introduced in both the House and the Senate this year but in each case in order to get the funding bills passed the spectrum portions of the bills were stripped out, sometimes at the last minute. This not only effects commercial operators but also the Public Safety community, which has been working to gain additional spectrum and funding from Congress to build its own nationwide interoperable broadband network(s).

As this is written there is little if any chance that the spectrum and the ability for the FCC to auction this spectrum will be settled by Congress. Even if auctions are once again authorized early next year, the timeline for building out the spectrum and putting it online to help meet some of the demand for broadband services will be 3-5 years—if everything goes well. So the increased demand for broadband access will continue to create problems for network operators both in the United States and around the world.

There were many more important happenings in 2011, but the bottom line for wireless in 2011 is that it is alive and well, companies are making money, and customers have better access to more different types of wireless connectivity in more parts of the United States and the world than ever before. There are some rough spots ahead on the road to ubiquitous wireless services but the technology and those who deploy and maintain it will continue to find ways to better optimize the spectrum we have. Hopefully, Congress will enable the FCC to auction more spectrum for commercial use, assign the 700-MHz D Block to Public Safety, and perhaps allocate some additional unlicensed spectrum for use in off-loading the wide-area networks as well.

Moving forward, the increasing demand for bandwidth and capacity will have to be met with more spectrum, off-loading wide-area network-only Wi-Fi or other local-area wireless systems, and by new, smarter technologies including cognitive and smart technologies. 2011 was a good year for wireless and I believe 2012 will be even better!

Again, Best Wishes for the Holidays from all of us to all of our readers.

Andrew M. Seybold

WiMAX has suffered significantly in the past two years as LTE has been adopted by more and more commercial operators around the world. It should be clear to everyone by now that LTE will be the 4G technology of choice for worldwide deployment and that for the first time in many years we are on the verge of moving toward a worldwide standard for data (first) and later voice services. Support for WiMAX has faltered since Intel pulled the plug on its program to make WiMAX a world standard 4G technology and it stopped investing millions of dollars in supporting WiMAX around the world. Will WiMAX die? Will the next generation of WiMAX ever make it out of the IEEE and be deployed? Many people still believe in WiMAX so it is too soon to pronounce it dead. It has a place as a point-to-point IP-based wireless technology but since Clearwire and Sprint are both moving to LTE the devices that support WiMAX will be few and far between in the future.

So LTE is what we will have going forward. LTE will keep getting better and more spectrally efficient, which will translate to faster data speeds and better data rates at cell edges. Before too long we will be moving into the world of LTE Advanced, which truly meets the speed goals set out by the 3GPP a few years ago for 4G networks. So all is right with the world, correct? LTE as a standard should mean devices capable of using LTE anywhere in the world and providing fast data speeds and voice (soon) with a single device. Well think again. We are a long way from where LTE in a single device will provide us with worldwide wireless communications services.

Today, both the FDD and TDD flavors of LTE are being deployed on a total (depending on who you listen to) of somewhere between 33 and 41 different portions of the radio spectrum. This spectrum runs the gamut from 700 MHz (United States, Canada) to 800, 900, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100, and 2500 MHz, some of which is FDD spectrum and some of which is TDD spectrum. Obviously this promises to make life difficult for everyone: chip vendors, network equipment vendors, network operators, device vendors, and ultimately the customers of the service.

Today LTE phones in the United States, for example, already include 700, 800, and 1900-MHz radios and support CDMA 1X, CDMA EV-DO REV A and LTE on Verizon. On AT&T they will support 700, 800, and 1900 MHz GSM, HSPA, HSPA+, and LTE. Phones also include a GPS receiver, Bluetooth, and Wi-Fi. Soon some phones will also have to support 1700/2100 MHz (AWS-1 spectrum), and if they are to be world phones they will also have to support some of these technologies on 900, 1800, and 2100 MHz as well. That is a lot to cram into a small form factor device: lots of different antennas, lots of duplexers (used to enable transmitting and receiving on the same antenna), filters, and other RF components. We keep pushing the design engineers and they keep delivering devices that have all of this inside them. But as we move forward into the world of LTE on a global basis there will come a point where even the best engineers in the world will run out of ideas on how to make all of these bands work inside a single device while providing battery life that is acceptable to the customer.

So it is ironic to me that for the first time we are on the verge of having a worldwide standard for broadband services (data and then voice) yet because of the way spectrum is allocated around the world we still won’t have a true world phone on LTE anytime soon. The way spectrum is allocated around the world is a convoluted process controlled by the ITU, but for the most part, once it has been allocated how it is used is up to the various countries. The 700-MHz spectrum in the United States will be used by Canada and perhaps Latin America over time. Perhaps it will eventually be used for LTE in other parts of the world but that remains to be seen.

Once an LTE system is installed in a specific portion of the spectrum and devices are sold, moving LTE to another band would not only require building a new network, it would also involve replacing customer devices so they are capable of operating in the new spectrum. In other words, once a network is built out and devices are available for it, it is really difficult to move to another portion of the spectrum. But if we had a single or perhaps three spectrum bands that provided worldwide LTE coverage, the price of the devices would come down considerable because the vendors could build a single device they could sell into every market in the world. This would result in significant savings for the vendors, network operators, and customers.

But until this happens, if it ever happens, which is anyone’s guess, we will have to live with what we have, which is a worldwide standard for our wireless interface that will replace 2G and 3G networks over time. However, it will not be a world standard in the true sense of the phrase because of all of the different portions of the spectrum on which it is being deployed. Perhaps software-defined radio technology will help with this situation. However, because you can configure a radio using software does not negate the issues of filters, duplexers, and antennas.

Antennas in cell phones are not operating as efficiently as they should. This is one reason that land mobile radio systems employ external antennas or antennas mounted on vehicles. They are more efficient, radiating more of the signal generated by the device and receiving more of the signal sent from the fixed site. Antennas embedded into cell phones are very inefficient but they are good enough for the systems to work. The laws of physics for antenna design can be bent a little but not broken, and there is a relationship between antenna length for a given portion of the spectrum and its effectiveness. It is possible to use some antennas for multiple bands, it is done all the time, but if there is not a mathematical relationship between the length of the antenna and the portion(s) of the spectrum on which it must work then there is a mismatch that causes the antenna to function poorly on some of the portions of the spectrum on which it is being used.

The bottom line is that most countries are not interested in making it easy for roamers to enter their area of operations. Both the countries and their operators are more interested in taking care of local customers. In reality, only about 15% of the world wireless population ever leaves their home network for other parts of the world so it is not a priority for these countries to worry about the differences in the spectrum allocations for the various technologies. Hopefully, this could change over time but at the moment it is a fact of life. Even within the United States only 15% of the population ever moves from their home area to other parts of the country so systems such as MetroPCS and Cricket, even though they offer nationwide service, are successful by offering better pricing because most of their customers never leave their prime operating areas.

With all of the different portions of spectrum being used for LTE, the cost of the devices will remain higher than they would be if a vendor built a single LTE device that would be usable in most of the world’s markets. This would mean that the devices would be less expensive to build, would cost the network operators less to buy down (those that do), and consumers would get better pricing. The down side for operators is that it would also enable customers to quickly and easily move from one network to another without having to purchase another device. I am sure that the reason Sprint now has the iPhone 4s, in addition to its guaranteed order to Apple, is that the iPhone is already available on Verizon and therefore already capable of both CDMA 1X and CDMA EV-DO, and both Verizon and Sprint use 1900-MHz spectrum (although Verizon also uses 800-MHz spectrum).

Going forward it appears to me as though HSPA+ will be the worldwide fallback data service of choice for those who need a device capable of being used in most countries around the world. In Europe, Asia, and the Americas, HSPA+ is used on a number of different portions of the spectrum but not nearly as many as LTE. To produce an LTE-capable phone with world capabilities will mean making sure that HSPA and HSPA+ are supported on 800, 900, 1700, 1800, 1900, and 2100 MHz. Since these phones already exist it should be possible for U.S. LTE network operators to add 700-MHz LTE to the mix and still have a viable phone with decent battery life.

LTE on so many bands is problematical and it is an issue in the United States. Even in the 700-MHz band, AT&T’s and Verizon’s spectrum are separated from each other so a phone that will cover both networks will need additional filters and duplexers in order to be able to provide service on both networks. The first LTE 700-MHz phones on the market will provide service on one or the other of the networks but not both. If you add the components to cover both networks and you also want the phone to be a world phone, you have to add the other six portions of the spectrum and several different over-the-air technologies. All of this makes these phones very complex and it amazes me that the design engineers don’t simply shake their heads and walk away from the issue. Instead, they always seem to find a way to make everything work and work well.

As we approach worldwide acceptance of LTE as the 4G wireless technology of choice, we will probably still have compatibility problems for many years to come. It would be ideal if those who set spectrum policy at the ITU and then the national level would work on trying to harmonize LTE into only a few different portions of the spectrum. This would provide the best of all worlds, but as I mentioned above, since this issue affects only about 15% of the wireless population I believe it will be a long time in coming.

Andrew M. Seybold

In both of these cases there were network issues. During the earthquake the problem was simple: The networks stayed up but they were overloaded and could not process all of the requests for service. This is the same scenario that has been experienced with landline phones for years. Remember how difficult it used to be to get a dial tone on Mother’s Day? Perhaps you remember when after an earthquake in California or during the wildland fires you could not get a call through to your relatives using the wired network?

While the cause of wired and wireless phone system overloads are different, the results are the same. The network is up and running but the number of people trying to make calls simply overwhelms the network. In the case of wired phones, the reason is that after your dedicated line reaches the nearest central office your call is joined with all of the other calls on a cable or microwave link. This link transfers the requests and the calls overloaded the link since all of these systems are built on the premise that not all phone users will want to make a phone call at exactly the same time. Therefore, the wired phone systems were designed to handle a normal, expected traffic load with extra capacity for peak call periods, but they were not designed for times when demand is unusually high. The lines and switches were jammed and people could not get dial tone and had to wait until the demand subsided.

The difference between wired and wireless network overloading is that in the wireless network the overloading happens when too many people are trying to use the network in a small area. Each cell site is typically made up of three sectors, each covering a 120-degree portion of the surrounding area (see diagram below).

This diagram depicts three cell sites with each site divided into three sectors. Each of the sectors has the same capacity as the others.

Each sector can handle a maximum loading within it. For the sake of simplicity, let’s assume that within each sector the maximum number of voice calls that can be handled is 100. A sector’s normal traffic load might be thirty calls at the same time, peaking at sixty calls in a single cell sector during busy periods. Good cellular design dictates that reserve capacity be built into each cell sector so that others entering that sector from another have capacity on the new sector and are not disconnected as they move from sector to sector.

The sector becomes overloaded when demand for service exceeds the maximum number of calls that can be processed in that sector, in this case 100, so if there are 120 people within the sector some will not have network access. The way you gain access to the network is that your device (or the network in the case of an incoming call) sends a request on what is typically called the signally channel. This channel is not only used to request a call but also for the network to track the location of the device so it can be found during an inbound call as well as to facilitate the hand-off to the next sector when the phone is moving. In some networks this signaling channel is also used for SMS traffic, which uses some of the capacity of the signaling channel.

If there are too many devices trying to access the network within a cell sector, the signaling channel becomes overloaded and some customers’ requests will not even reach the network (this is one reason priority access for public safety is not a viable option). So there are two issues, the total number of calls a sector is capable of handling, and the amount of traffic on the signaling channel. Even if more spectrum is allocated to a cell sector, while the number of calls that can be handled by that sector increases, there is still a finite number the sector is capable of processing and completing.

On the data side, even fewer data sessions per sector are normally supported. In normal usage, data bursts to and from the device will permit more customers to make use of the broadband data side of the system. However, if a number of customers are streaming video up or down, the total number of broadband data users is diminished greatly. Even in normal times we have seen the results of cell site sector overloading. AT&T had this type of problem as the iPhone took off a few years ago and many of its customers started using a lot of data services. It is possible that one sector or multiple cell sites are completely overloaded due to demand but calls can still be made and received a few miles away where the demand is less.

What happened during the earthquake was that everyone reached for their phones at once. The networks worked perfectly during the aftermath of the quake but they were simply overloaded on both the voice and the data side. Calls could not be made or received, calls were dropped, video taken of damage could not be sent, and SMS messages did not get through. No matter how much spectrum we have or how robust the commercial operators build these networks, we will have network overloading during major events.

This is not a new problem. You might recall that during the Oklahoma bombing the radio and TV stations were telling people within the affected areas not to use their phones so the commercial systems could be used to augment the public safety channels. During the earthquake, I am not aware of a single cell site failure so the bottom line is that in this instance, the problems experienced were network overloading and this will never be solved no matter how much spectrum we throw at it and no matter how many more cell sites are built. It is not possible for anyone to build a commercial wired or wireless network that will not reach saturation at some point, due to some type of major incident. The same is true, by the way, with the Internet for all of you who plan to rely on it and store all of your data in the cloud.

One advantage to the commercial wireless networks is that the network operators can do some on-the-fly network management. Especially the newer 3G and 4G networks have tools built in that enable pro-active traffic management by changing antenna patterns to shrink the radius of a cell site, to overlap cell sectors in a given area, and to try to balance the load. However, even with all of this new technology there comes a point where a cell sector, and possibly many cell sectors, will be overloaded and this will happen over and over again. It is more severe during an event such as an earthquake because once the event is over, everyone reaches for their phones at once. During a longer incident, say a hurricane, the traffic does not usually peak as quickly and therefore the networks are generally able to handle the additional traffic.

Hurricane Irene

The other advantage to a natural disaster such as a hurricane is that there is advanced warning. In the case of Irene, you can review all of the press releases from the network operators and see that they were all preparing for the worst. They moved equipment around, made sure batteries and generators were operating and had their maximum capacity, and pre-dispatched people and spare parts to areas where the predictions were for the major damage from the storm.

From all of the reports I have seen, the commercial networks, for the most part, withstood what the hurricane threw at them. There were, according to the FCC’s records, a number of outages but they were not network-wide and were limited to cell sites that were damaged or flooded, or where the connection between the site and the network was destroyed. The result was that most of the East Coast was able to use the commercial wireless networks. I have not heard of any network overloads simply because the storm was both predicted and lasted so long in most areas.

The sites that went down went down because of wind damage or flooding, or as mentioned, because the link between the cell site and the network was broken. Today, many cell sites, but not all, have battery back-up and many have both batteries and generators. The number of sites with generators depends in large part on the network. Some networks won’t build a major site without a generator, others build out the network with key sites having both batteries and generators, but some sites only have battery back-up. Some sites are equipped with battery back-up and provisioned so that a portable generator can be driven to the site and connected. Some of the smaller picocell sites don’t have any back-up power at all and if you have a femtocell in your house or office and you lose power, you will probably lose the picocell as well.

It would not matter if every cell site in the United States had massive generators on them. First of all, generators do not operate underwater (one of the big problems during Katrina). Secondly, even if the generator continues to keep the site up, if the link between the site and the network is down then the site, while on and operating, is not functioning and might as well be off. The network operators do the best they can and are very responsive to restoring sites that go down, but sometimes they have to wait for the wired phone company, the fiber company, or even the power company to restore the link to the site before they can bring it back online. As you know, there are still some people without power in various parts of the East Coast and the power companies are working overtime to restore power.

Conclusions

Two different acts of nature caused incidents resulting in two different types of commercial network issues. During the earthquake, the networks stayed up but were overcrowded, a situation that will be repeated regardless of what we do, and the hurricane saw more spot outages due to power and communications links problems. In both cases these types of problems cannot be fixed by an FCC inquiry or a change in the rules, they will continue to happen. There is no such thing as a network that can withstand overcrowding or wind and flooding.

We have all come to rely on our wireless devices, and these incidents underscore our reliance on them. We have to learn to live with the fact that such disruptions will continue to occur. Mother Nature is to blame, not the network operators. In the meantime, what we can learn from this is to not rely 100% on a single form of communications. For my part, I keep four family radio handhelds with good batteries in them for local conditions within my family, and I have been a licensed amateur radio operator since my teens and our local organization provides emergency communications during disasters. We train and we prepare. Our slogan is that “When all else fails there is Amateur radio.” It worked during Katrina, in Haiti, and during the recent tornadoes; I will guarantee you that there were amateur radio operators on the air right after the earthquake and again during the hurricane.

Infrastructure-based communications systems will become overloaded or damaged, that is a fact of life. It is also one reason that the public safety community relies on what is known a simplex, or off-network communications (or peer-to-peer for IT types). If their infrastructure is down they are still able to communicate unit-to-unit no matter where they are, over distances of several miles in most cases. Their networks are designed to support this mode of operation and it is one of the reasons commercial cellular networks are not able to provide the type of communications needed by public safety. They simply cannot afford to be without the ability to communicate so they can continue to be effective during any type of emergency

We rely on our wireless devices but incidents such as these should make us more aware that we might not always be able to communicate with them. It is no one’s fault, it is a fact of life we have to learn to live with—part of smart disaster planning should include at least one other form of communications for times such as these.

Andrew M. Seybold

Adding more capacity means obtaining more spectrum or building out more cell sites closer together, or both. The issue with the first option is that in order to acquire more spectrum, wireless network operators must wait for the FCC to make more available, buy spectrum from a competitor, or merge with another network operator that also has spectrum. They can also add more cell sites closer together, which all of the network operators do on a regular basis. Neither of these options provides a quick fix to the capacity issues. New cell sites take months if not years to plan and build and they must be approved by local planning commissions. Finding new sites in a large metro area is tough, and finding new sites in suburbia not only means having to deal with the planning commission, they must also deal with the residents who are asking for more capacity and more speed but don’t want new cell sites built near them.

So these two options should be viewed as part of the long-term fix for capacity demand. However, the way demand is increasing now we will run out of capacity before more spectrum or enough new cell sites can be built. One of the reasons AT&T wants to buy T-Mobile is that it will gain access to both additional spectrum and additional cell sites and from that perspective the purchase makes a lot of sense (and it won’t hinder competition).

There is one more option using new technology available to network operators and if I failed to mention it here, I know I would hear from one of the cellular pioneers who is also a pioneer in the field of smart antennas. Smart antennas, which are not being deployed in large numbers except in LTE systems), are designed to basically track customers within a cell sector and using a technology called beam forming, extend both their capacity and the distance they can be from the cell site center and still have good data rates. The technology has been around for a number of years now, but for various reasons it has not gained wide acceptance in the industry, at least not yet.

Meanwhile, the FCC has promised to “find” an additional 300 MHz of spectrum suitable for broadband within five years and an additional 200 MHz of spectrum in the next five years. We cannot make spectrum, we can only reallocate what we have and use it more efficiently. If the FCC is successful, it will still be years before this spectrum can be placed into service. First it must identify the spectrum, then figure out where to relocate existing users, then put it out to auction. Only after all of that has been accomplished will the winners of the spectrum be able to build it out. That will take a few years, and then add more time to bring devices capable of using the spectrum into the market. Once again, this is one of the long-term solutions but it won’t help in the short term.

To make matters worse, Credit Suisse just issued a report stating that today’s wireless broadband networks in the United States are already operating at 80% of their capacity. This not only has an impact on the availability of bandwidth for customers, it can also affect the ability of a network to hand off a data session from one cell sector to another. If the customer is mobile and moves from a cell sector that has capacity to one that does not, the session could be dropped or the data rate could be lowered. Data usage is at an all-time high and continues to grow. The same report indicates that in Europe the systems are at 65% of capacity and quickly moving toward 70%.

What then, is left for the network operators in the short term? How do they manage the bandwidth they have, how do they serve as many customers as possible with the best possible capacity and data speeds? Off-loading broadband services from the network is one good way to help distribute the load of broadband and this is being done today using Wi-Fi and femtocells or in-building cell sites. Both of these methods really do help unload the wide-area networks since the backhaul for both Wi-Fi and femtocells is the customer’s own wired broadband connection. Wi-Fi or a femtocell in a home provides better indoor coverage and moves the data to and from the customer via a wired broadband connection and then the last 100 feet over a wireless link.

Only a few years ago, the major network operators did not want to consider using Wi-Fi because it is an unlicensed technology and they did not want their customers to move off the network. T-Mobile was the only network operator to embrace Wi-Fi early and today thousands of Wi-Fi hotspots are seamlessly integrated into its network. AT&T and then Verizon finally decided that broadband demand was building so fast that Wi-Fi off-loading really did provide a way to help manage the demand. Today, both AT&T and Verizon off-load a lot of their broadband services whenever possible. This has been helped by the fact that most smartphones today include Wi-Fi capability as a standard feature, and there are two ways data can be off-loaded. In the case of the iPhone, for example, customers are told by the device that there is a Wi-Fi hotspot nearby and asked if they want to connect to it. In some cases, the device is now totally independent from the wide-area network, but in other cases the two networks are joined at the back end so services such as email and other information exchange can still be used.

The next level up is the type of system run by T-Mobile. In its case, anytime you enter an airport or other place where there is a Wi-Fi hotspot your device automatically moves over to the Wi-Fi network for both voice and data services. (The voice is not Voice over IP but GSM voice that is encoded using the UMA standard.) This automatically frees up the wide-area network in any area such as an airport where there is a high demand for both voice and data services.

There is a lot of interest in femtocells as well. A femtocell is like a Wi-Fi access point in your home or office but it is on the wide-area network’s spectrum. You connect it to your wired broadband service (DSL, cable, fiber) and once activated it is connected to the back end of the wide-area network. Femtocells are seen as one of the hot technologies this year because they do off-load the wide-area network, the customer usually pays for the femtocell, and it uses the customer’s wireless Internet connection as backhaul to reach the operator’s network. Most femtocells offer both voice and data services, and most require the placement of a GPS antenna in order to meet the E911 mandate from the FCC.

There are a number of other ways to increase in-building coverage with Distributed Antenna Systems, Bi-Directional Amplifiers, and other technologies. However, none of these methods off-load the traffic from the wide-area network since they must be in range of a donor cell sector. So while they do increase in-building coverage, they do not off-load traffic from the wide-area network.

All of the above options are being implemented by the network operators as they race to meet the surging demand for broadband services. However, in addition to the technology options they need other ways in which to balance the demand for broadband and the amount of broadband bandwidth they have available. Technology advancements and increases in capacity are long-term fixes while Wi-Fi and femtocells are immediate fixes—but only for a given home or building. What other options do the network operators have to try to balance the demand and capacity of their network?

The Answer Is Broadband Pricing

Only a few years ago it was commonplace for network operators to offer all-you-can-eat broadband data pricing models. This was done to encourage customers to embrace data services and it worked very well. As speeds increased, devices became more broadband friendly and the demand rose. Along with the number of new customers attracted to wireless broadband is a class of users known as “data hogs.” These customers use much more than their “share” of the capacity available on a given network. Only a year or so after AT&T and Apple launched the iPhone, AT&T reported that 4% of iPhone users were using 50% of its network’s capacity.

Now that broadband is an established form of mobile communications and all of the Internet companies have “discovered” wireless broadband, the demand is soaring and by necessity the network operators are finding, one by one, that they have to use data pricing to help manage the capacity on their networks. AT&T and Verizon have switched to tiered pricing levels based on “normal” data usage levels. The low tier is normally 2 GB of data per month and the high tier is 5 GB per month. These numbers are based on a lot of research by the network operators on data usage and they should be sufficient to meet most customers’ demand.

Those who exceed these monthly limits are then charged overage fees on a per-GB basis. Many people think the network operators are simply being greedy, but in reality, the tiers are designed to accommodate 80-90% of all customers’ demand (today), and to better manage the data hogs that are using much more bandwidth every month. Remember that network capacity has to be broken down into cell sector coverage. A typical cell is divided into three 120-degree sectors and each sector has the same bandwidth capacity. If, for example, each sector in the network is capable of 15 Mbps of data and there is only one customer within that sector, he or she can use all of the available capacity. However, if there are ten people requesting data within that same cell sector, they will share the available bandwidth and capacity.

If all of these customers are using the network for email, surfing the Internet, and the like, the data packets are intermingled and each user has a good data experience. However, if several of the customers within the cell sector are streaming video, especially HD video, the amount of capacity available for the other customers in the same cell sector is diminished. If too many people are trying to stream content within that cell sector then the cell sector performance appears to be poor for all of the customers, even those simply trying to send and receive email. Add to this the fact that the further you are from the center of the cell sector the less the data speed and, therefore, capacity you have. Even with LTE the data rates at the end of a cell sector fall off to around 256 Kbps, which is why network operators attempt to build sites close together to minimize the number of customers who have to operate at the edge of a cell sector.

Real-World Data

In order to understand the issue, here are some data points for video streaming in use today:

• 420P or DVD Quality requires 2.3 Mbps
• 720P or HD Quality requires 5.8 Mbps
• 1080P or HD plus Blu-ray Quality requires 10 Mbps

Putting that into perspective, if you are a customer in a cell sector with a capacity of 15 Mbps and there are three customers in the same sector who are streaming HD-quality video, there is no bandwidth left for anyone else! These numbers are based on MPEG-4 data compression; another option is H.264, which dramatically reduces the bandwidth required. In the early days of computers, our firm was constantly asked to help vendors find the next “killer application” that would help drive the adoption of PCs and mobile computing devices. Back then a number of applications were considered to be killer applications including VisiCalc, Word processing, and Ashton-Tate’s database. Today we view a killer application differently: Streaming video is a killer application; it could easily kill wireless (and wired) broadband capacity.

Most of the network operators in the United States have started tiered pricing, which has almost always been the case in the rest of the world. It is interesting to note that in the United States we pay some of the lowest prices for wireless voice and data services in the world even though people gripe about the costs. I tell people they should not be surprised that we are entering the era of tiered pricing since most of us have been paying on a tiered pricing basis for our electricity and our water for many years. It is a common tool to help manage any resource that is limited; therefore it is natural that it has found its way into the wireless world.

But more and different types of pricing await us as network operators strive to make as much bandwidth available for as many of their customers as they can. Some of the options I expect to see coming in the near future include one-person, multiple-devices pricing that will save money for many of us who have multiple devices, but the total data usage will still be on a tiered basis and aggregated for all of our devices. Likewise, I think we will see family data plans similar to what we now have with voice plans and I would not be at all surprised to see time-of-day data pricing before long. It might work like this: Want to download a large file? At 2 pm in the afternoon you might have to pay a few bucks to download it but at 2 am the download might be free. The additional cost will be worth it if we need the file right now, but if we can wait until later it will be possible to set the download for an off-peak time or even for the application to measure network usage and download the file during slack times.

In Europe there are discussions going on now, at least among the network operators and the EU, about requiring companies that are heavy traffic users on the wireless networks (YouTube, Netflix, etc.) to be required to pay the operators in order to help with build-out and capacity improvement costs. I, for one, am strongly in favor of this approach and believe that those who create the traffic should pay part of the costs to ensure there is enough capacity for all of the customers on a network. It is unfair for them to congest the networks and not have to pay for the privilege of doing so.

There are those who still believe that both Internet and wireless bandwidth will be abundant for years to come. Cloud companies are betting their businesses on it and companies such as Netflix and many others are betting their businesses on it. Those who understand the realities of the limited bandwidth we actually have available today, the time it will take to increase it, and the sharp increase in the demand for services are working diligently to expand the capabilities of our networks and infrastructure.

There are grumbles about the end of all-you-can-eat data pricing but the reality of the situation is that network operators need to use all the tools available to them to manage the amount of bandwidth available. Technology upgrades, more spectrum, more cell sites, Wi-Fi and femtocell network off-loads, and yes, tiered data pricing are all tools that are being deployed by the network operators. They are trying their best to balance the capacity and demand for wireless broadband. One thing is certain: More people need to realize that wireless bandwidth is in short supply and we need to use it wisely. More importantly at this point, we need to understand that it may not always be there for us no matter where we are and no matter how badly we are in need of a wireless connection.

Andrew M. Seybold

Around mid-year we were approached by Walt Stinson, founder of Listen Up, the region’s high-end audio and video retail store, who along with a consortium of consumer electronics companies and content providers wanted to host the Rocky Mountain regional launch of digital CDs at our 1,200-seat venue on a week night. Digital music CDs? Who knew? Walt did. His small company would become the largest retailer of Sony CDs in the United States that year. Walt (W0CP) would also go on to become the Rocky Mountain Regional Director of the American Radio Relay League (ARRL) and in 2009 was named to the Consumer Electronics Hall of Fame along with Dr. Irwin Jacobs of Qualcomm and Apple’s Steve Jobs. In short, Walt recognized the potential for digital and radio far ahead of the curve.

The digital audio revolution of early 1983 would eventually become the category killer of the recording industry, devastating the market for vinyl 33-1/3 rpm albums. The new technology required a digital CD player, originally launched by a joint venture of Sony and Philips Consumer Electronics, to be hooked up to your home audio system. In a matter of months, FM radio stations were touting the broad collection of digital CDs they played and within a year or so some stations positioned themselves as “All CDs [digital], all the time.” That was a great positioning statement and differentiator from their competition, but it ignored a significant gap in the delivery channel. These all-digital radio stations might have played only digital CDs, but their broadcast signal would be analog for many years to come and home audio system receivers and tuners were also analog. Broadcasting digital content via analog signals to analog receivers offered no significant enhancement to the listeners. It provided little more than what we would experience today receiving a High-Definition (HD) video signal on a non-High-Definition monitor. You have to have end-to-end digital connectivity to be able to appreciate the benefits of digital technology.

Within the mobile audio space, there has been a chasm between the level of quality content creators are able to produce in the studio and the mobile device user experience. There is no end-to-end solution that allows mobile users to truly benefit from the enhanced audio quality generated at the source. Dolby Labs is working to change this inequity. For the past few months, Dolby has been demonstrating its 5.1 HD level surround sound for smartphones. A brief history of Dolby Labs establishes its audio credentials. It began providing noise reduction technology for consumer audio systems in the late 1960s and in the late 1970s it broadened its offerings to include stereo optical sound for 35mm film, attracting a lot attention with the release of Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

The battle for our ears on mobile platforms is well underway. In addition to Dolby’s presence in the mobile market, several other audio technology companies have joined the chase to satisfy the ever-expanding demand for a superior mobile user experience. With 3D gaming and video on phones such as the LG Optimus 3D P920 and HTC’s EVO 3D, consumers will demand the very best audio they can get. Both Audyssey and DTS, Inc. are working on improving audio quality in mobile devices. Audyssey, with a background in home, car, and theater audio is promoting its Premium Mobile Suite. Audyssey’s solution tweaks and optimizes voice and audio on the mobile device by enhancing the performance of the speakers and amplification process. Its solution claims to reduce volume swings and pump up the bass. In addition, Audyssey’s solution automatically compensates for ambient noise. DTS, formerly Digital Theater Systems, cut its teeth in the commercial and home theater audio markets. Its decoders are installed in many multi-channel surround sound processors. DTS is also focused on enhancing the audio experience on mobile devices. Both DTS and Dolby play in the 5.1 surround sound space, but on the mobile platform, DTS is focused on enhancing the users’ experience for games and sideloaded music.

Getting back to the digital CD to analog relationship, the content originally recorded in a digital format and released on digital CDs, is converted to analog long before it reaches the listeners’ ears. Digital, smigital. If you don’t have an end-to-end digital solution, you don’t have “the” digital solution. You only have a piece or two of it. It’s cool to be able to have a better experience listening to your sideloaded music or the audio on those games, but what about listening to Pandora Radio or My Heart Radio programs? There may be a better experience with tweaked onboard audio, but it’s not “exceptional.” Enhancing onboard audio and video solely on the device is great, but it doesn’t mitigate the audio degradation issues when the content is coming to you through content aggregators and the operator’s network. Operators and device manufacturers have to keep in mind the marketing adage, “It’s not just about meeting customer’s expectations. We must exceed their expectations.” Doing so will create the “exceptional experience” that will enable their products and services to excel in today’s high quality demand market.

This seems to be where Dolby is differentiating itself from its competition. Dolby’s plan is to implement its proprietary technologies all along the distribution/transmission channel, from creation of the content to its processing and delivery by aggregators to wireless operators and ultimately its retransmission over the network to end users’ mobile devices. Dolby’s four digital components, Dolby Media Generator, Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby Pulse, and Dolby Mobile stand to offer a real enhancement at the end user level. Dolby is demoing effective enhancements in audio quality at rates as low as 24 Kbps, and far better quality at 48-96 Kbps. And a Dolby enhanced phone is capable of driving 5.1 surround sound on a large LCD monitor. As impressive as the demos are, they are not fully end-to-end. The middle part is missing. Dolby’s challenge will be getting buy-in for its total set of solutions along the complexity of the content distribution channels. Every step, from creation of content to the mobile device, must be integrated. It took years for digital radio to really become digital radio. Given the motivation of operators to leverage and load their new high-speed networks, perhaps we’ll see the lightening-speed rise in smartphone ownership ignite the implementation of true end-to-end solutions such as Dolby’s. Better audio quality will generate more over-the-air video streaming, interactive gaming, and music downloads, which will be good for those operators that have the bandwidth to deliver.

Bob Chapin

GPS is a receive-only service that relies on the ability to “see” three or more satellites to report a current location. If more satellites are in view, the system can also determine the altitude of the device and the speed and direction of its travel. However, if the GPS signals are being interfered with near LightSquared’s cell sites (it is proposing more than 50,000), those who rely on GPS will have problems. Recent tests of the LightSquared network in New Mexico verified that interference issues do exist.

If people cannot receive a GPS signal, actually multiple GPS signals, then the system does not function. Not only do the people with GPS receivers no longer know where they are, neither does their boss. If they have to call 9-1-1 for an emergency, those answering the phone don’t know where they are either. The radio signals from satellites (GSP satellites and others) are not very strong and any interference to them will wipe them out and prevent them from being received. Except for those designed for military service, GPS receivers don’t have very good receivers. They are not able to filter out interference well (they have not needed to in the past), and in order to get the price point for GPS systems low enough to be built into every cell phone and handheld and dash-mounted device, the receivers have not been built to reject signals in the next band over. So if LightSquared is permitted to move forward with its nationwide rollout, the consequences could be devastating to anyone who relies on GPS services for location, attitude, speed, and direction of travel.

First responders use GPS on a daily basis for finding locations. For example, medevac helicopters are directed to a location to pick up seriously injured patients. If they cannot use their GPS system they are blind and don’t know where to respond. Taxis use GPS so their location can be known to the company, truckers use GPS to find locations, FedEx, UPS, and other delivery services use GPS, and many of us have GPS systems built into our vehicles or we own a GPS device that sits on our dashboard. If the LightSquared spectrum is built out, the chances of wide-spread interference are very real.

Since the FCC issued the waiver to LightSquared, the company contends that it can minimize any interference, but the Department of Defense, the Federal Aviation Administration, and other Federal Government agencies have called for the rescinding of the LightSquared waiver to operate a terrestrial system in spectrum that was originally set aside for satellite communications. Even Congress is now in the battle with more than 30 Congressional leaders calling for the FCC to revoke the waiver. In recent New Mexico tests this interference was confirmed.

Meanwhile, LightSquared has indicated that it is heading for an IPO and that it has contracts to provide wholesale fourth-generation broadband to a number of smaller network operators including SI Wireless, Cellular South, Leap Wireless, and others. These companies, none of which have enough of their own spectrum to build out LTE or 4G networks, are planning on wholesaling network capacity from LightSquared. But if the spectrum LightSquared is counting on for its network is not available, what does LightSquared do and what does its partners do?

Well, LightSquared is in talks with AT&T and Sprint to wholesale 4G capacity on these networks. This seems like a logical idea until you step back and look at the economics involved. If LightSquared buys capacity from AT&T, for example, then LightSquared becomes, in reality, a Mobile Virtual Network Operator or MVNO. If it then sells this capacity to its partners, its partners will have to pay a premium for the capacity they could probably obtain directly from AT&T for less than they will pay LightSquared and LightSquared’s business model becomes even more tenuous than it was before.

If LightSquared builds out its network, even with tower sharing and other cost savings, a nationwide network will cost it about $15 billion to build and that is on the low side. Verizon has stated that it has already invested that much and it has existing infrastructure to use to help lower the costs of deployment. Once the network is built, the average monthly cost per cell site for rent, power, insurance, and other costs will be about $6K per month and that is also on the low side). This means LightSquared’s monthly site costs will run about $24 million or nearly $300 million per year. That is before profit and does not include company overhead and other costs. LTE requires either fiber or microwave to and from each cell site and that cost will also be substantial.

If LightSquared leases capacity on someone else’s network it will not have to pay construction or ongoing operational costs, but then its margins will be a lot slimmer, having to buy capacity and then resell it to its partners. I don’t think this business model is very viable either, and if the demand for broadband continues and the company LightSquared is buying capacity from starts having capacity issues of its own, will LightSquared actually get all the capacity for which it has contracted? My guess is that LightSquared becomes a secondary citizen on the network and that if capacity becomes an issue, it will be the first to have to give some up. The other capacity issue is that if LightSquared resells this capacity to four or five other network operators, will they have enough capacity to service their own customer base as broadband demand continues to increase? Either way, it seems to me that this is a very risky business model.

The history of MVNOs is littered with failures. The ones remaining have, for the most part, been purchased by the network operator that was providing capacity to the MVNO in the first place, and once it was determined that the business model was flawed, the MVNO either folded its tent and went home or its customers were absorbed into the parent network. Historically, the MVNO business has not been successful and I don’t see this model as one that leads me to believe things will be different this time around.

Adding all of these things together, my outlook for LightSquared is bleak to say the least. If I add in the fact that its spectrum, which has the potential to interfere with GPS receivers, has therefore lost most of its value as an asset, it is difficult to understand how the company believes it can succeed. Yet It remains bullish and is talking about a future IPO and how bright its income future is. I, for one, don’t believe LightSquared will remain a viable entity. It appears to have been blinded in its judgment by the fact that wireless broadband is growing rapidly, there is no end in sight for this increased demand, and the FCC has recognized that more broadband spectrum will be needed as soon as possible.

The FCC and others in the Federal Government seem to believe we need additional competitors in the wireless space; having more competition will continue to drive down the cost of voice and data services to business and consumer users. In reality, today’s wireless customers in the United States continue to pay some of the lowest rates for wireless voice and data services in the world. Yes, we are entering a new era where unlimited data plans are being withdrawn in favor of plans that limit the amount of data allocated to a single user on a monthly basis, but this is necessary in order for network operators to provide more of their customer base with more access to broadband, and it is one way that broadband demand can be managed in order to accomplish this goal.

The FCC continues to look for additional spectrum as it should since we do need it and we need it as soon as possible. I am sure that LightSquared’s proposal to the FCC was met with much enthusiasm since it would provide additional broadband capacity at the very time it is needed. But if the LightSquared spectrum is deemed unusable for terrestrial broadband service, as I believe it will be, then LightSquared does not bring additional capacity with it when it launches its service. It will simply place a bigger burden on the existing spectrum in terms of capacity demand.

LightSquared would be better served to try to purchase spectrum that is not being used for broadband at the moment. Clearwire has a lot of unused spectrum in the 2.5-GHz band and it needs money, the FCC can auction the AWS-2 and 3 Bands, and the FCC already has spectrum in a number of areas in the country that did not sell at auction or that was taken back because the winning bidder either did not meet the payment requirements of an auction or did not meet the build-out requirements.

We need more wireless spectrum for broadband and we need it soon; the AT&T/T-Mobile merger is about spectrum assets just as the Cingular/AT&T merger was before it. There are only a few ways to obtain more broadband capacity for customers—use more spectrum if it is available, build more cell sites closer together, or a combination of the two. Spectrum is, indeed, a finite resource and demand for wireless broadband services is growing quarter-over-quarter, but that does not mean we should jeopardize an important system such as GPS in order to help fill the void. Instead we need to look at how to get more spectrum that is better suited for wireless broadband into the market as quickly as possible.

We should learn from our past. When Nextel was born by converting spectrum used for land mobile radio systems (LMR) to a cellular architecture, the network caused a lot of interference to existing Land Mobile Radio systems in the same portion of the spectrum. The fix was to reband this spectrum and put all of the Nextel channels together so they would no longer interfere with LMR customers, many of which are public safety agencies. This fix has been in the works for more than five years, has cost Sprint/Nextel more than $3 billion, and will not be completed in some areas of the United States for a few more years. We cannot afford to have this type of interference issue surface again because a company or a federal agency believes that more broadband competition is vital to our wireless broadband future.

LightSquared should not be permitted to build a network in the spectrum adjacent to the GPS service. Every transmitter ever made transmits not only on the portion of the spectrum for which it was designed, it also injects noise into the adjacent spectrum. This is simply the way radio frequency devices work. If there are two broadband systems next to each other most of the time, this interference can be minimized. However, when you put a broadband system right next to the GPS service on which the receivers are searching for low-powered signals from multiple satellites, you are asking for trouble. The goal should be to provide additional spectrum for broadband without causing problems for other services. I do not believe that can be accomplished in this case.

Andrew M. Seybold

A week or so ago, the NAB issued a report by an “independent” third party (Onyeiju Consulting, LLC from Arlington, VA) which, in its executive summary, stated, “Many wireless carriers and their trade associations argue that the FCC must make hundreds of megahertz of spectrum available for wireless broadband in order to keep pace with customers’ growing mobile data demands. But this is not so. Capacity problems can be addressed in numerous ways that do not involve spectrum. So while additional spectrum is a tool that can help relieve congestion on mobile networks, the current rush to reallocate is not necessary.”

It goes on to say that prior to worrying about reallocation of spectrum for broadband services, the following can be used to address capacity concerns:

• “Deploying innovative network technology upgrades that will promote spectral efficiency;
• Establishing pricing and other fair-use policies to lessen network congestion;
• Migrating voice traffic to Internet Protocol;
• Leveraging consumer infrastructure such as femtocells and Wi-Fi;
• Investing in infrastructure to enhance capacity through the deployment of Multi-Antenna Signal Processing (smart antennas), picocells, modernizing network architecture, Distributed Antenna Systems, upgraded backhaul, sectorization and cell splitting;
• Prioritizing latency sensitive data packets;
• Employing caching;
• Utilizing channel bonding; and
• Encouraging the development of bandwidth sensitive applications and devices.”

The report continues in this vein but is very short on facts. The authors do not address, nor do they acknowledge the FCC’s own OBI broadband capacity report that shows a shortfall of spectrum of 95 MHz of broadband spectrum by 2012 and about 250 MHz by 2014. This report is designed to prove that the FCC is wrong to try to gain additional spectrum. The bottom line is that the NAB, with this report as “evidence,” is trying to protect the TV channels that could easily be cleared, and cleared quickly, to make more wireless broadband spectrum available.

TV channels are 6 MHz of spectrum each and the lowest frequency that would be usable for mobile broadband is about 500 MHz. It turns out that TV channels 20 (506 to 512 MHz) through channel 51 (692 to 698 MHz) are a good fit. This would free up another 192 MHz of prime spectrum for wireless broadband services. Analog TV needed 6 MHz of spectrum for each channel and no two adjacent channels could be active in the same area because of the potential for interference between the two channels since receivers in most TV sets are not good enough to prevent interference from an adjacent channel.

HD TV does need all 6 MHz of spectrum per channel and over-the-air HD TV does not work well on TV channels below channel 7 because of multipath and other noise, but that still leaves TV channels 8 through 19. Today, less than 20% of the U.S. population uses over-the-air TV as their only form of TV reception while 35-40% are using it as a supplement to pay-tv services. Add to that the fact that many TV stations are no longer making much if any profit, and that there is room for all TV stations within a city to operate within the 8 to 19 channel range, and it is easy to see why the FCC and others are looking at the spectrum between channels 20 and 51 for additional broadband spectrum. This spectrum is ideal for broadband services and even though the broadcasters did not buy it at auction, they don’t want to lose it.

The FCC has proposed, and some in Congress agree, that these auctions could be classified as incentive auctions with a portion of the proceeds going back to the TV stations that voluntarily move to a lower channel. The problem I see with this is that all of the spectrum must be cleared on a nationwide basis in order to make it available. If some stations did not voluntarily agree to move, they would have to be forced to do so. I am also opposed to paying the broadcasters to give up spectrum they never paid for in the first place, although I think that it would be fair to help them with relocation costs.

There are some advantages for TV broadcasters to move to lower channels: The lower you go in the TV spectrum, the better your coverage is and many of these stations would be able to reduce their power (and thus their electric bills) by moving to lower spectrum so they would enjoy either better coverage with the same power or the same coverage with reduced costs. In either event, it is a win for the TV broadcasters, a win for commercial wireless broadband customers, and a win for the network operators that are trying to provide more bandwidth to meet increasing demand for broadband services.

How much is this spectrum worth at auction? The upper 700 MHz of spectrum (TV channels 60 through 67) produced a total income to the Feds of more than $19 billion so if you do the math, each TV channel is worth $2.38 billion. Since broadband spectrum must be paired, each 6X6 MHz chunk of spectrum would bring in $4.76 billion. Therefore, the total auction proceeds would be at least $73.78 billion, and since the spectrum is more valuable than even the 700-MHz spectrum, chances are that the total income from the auctions would exceed $80 billion. This is a sizeable amount, but to put it in perspective, the U.S. debt is growing at the rate of $4.2 billion per day so this auction would pay off the national debt for 19 days!

More importantly, it would provide more needed spectrum, more jobs, perhaps more network competition, and additional money flowing into the wireless sector as these systems are built out. TV broadcasters would still have enough channels and the U.S. Treasury would gain $80 billion. Business and consumer customers would have more broadband spectrum to use so data rates over all the networks could be better maintained. It sure seems like a win for everyone to me.

Even if $12 billion of the proceeds went to fund the Public Safety broadband nationwide network that is being proposed, the total gross for the U.S. Treasury would still be $68 billion and Public Safety would finally be able to build out a nationwide broadband network and provide nationwide interoperability for the first time ever. An investment in the Public Safety network that did not impact the Treasury would go a long way toward helping our first responders.

The players are lining up on both sides of the field and the NAB will probably enlist some more big guns on its side. On the other side is the FCC, most of Congress and the administration, network operators, the consumer and business population of the country, and others who understand that having more bandwidth is critical to providing better wireless broadband services. However, before the game ends there will be a lot of action in the middle of the field and lots of posturing and positioning from both sides. Time is a critical factor here. If we are to identify and make available more broadband spectrum it has to be done sooner, rather than later. From the day it is identified to the day it is auctioned will be a year or more, then the TV stations will have to be relocated and that will consume at least another year, and then it will take network operators one to three years to build out these systems. So even if we started work on the auctions today, this spectrum would not be available for use until 2015 or 2016, well beyond the FCC’s projected spectrum shortfall for broadband services. If it takes two years to decide to auction the spectrum and craft the laws to accomplish all of this, it will be 2017 or 2018 before the spectrum is really available.

In the Meantime

While we are waiting and watching for how all this plays out, the FCC already has some spectrum in the bank that it can release for auctions. There is the AWS-2 spectrum, which, if paired properly, could add another 20-30 MHz of available spectrum and then in some parts of the United States there is some PCS (1900-MHz spectrum), which was either turned back into the FCC or the FCC took back because the auction winner did not meet build-out requirements. The NTIA (the organization in charge of all federally held spectrum) has some spectrum it could free up quickly. Quickly, in this case means the spectrum could make its way into the market in three or four years and would help bridge the gap between growing demand for bandwidth. Then the TV channel spectrum would become available.

The FCC and the NTIA will have to work together to help “find” more broadband spectrum. I hope they don’t spend a lot of time looking below 500 MHz because, as noted above, spectrum below 500 MHz is not well suited for mobile broadband services. The antennas, filters, and duplexers needed below 500 MHz are too big and battery life will be an issue. Perhaps some broadband usage can be made of lower spectrum for fixed broadband usage, but the real choices for mobile broadband spectrum are from 500 MHz up to about 3.5 GHz, and even that is a stretch. The number of cells required at 500 MHz versus 3.5 GHz is about a 1:15 ratio. For every one at 500 MHz, you would need fifteen at 3.5 GHz.

Within that range of spectrum, the TV stations now occupy 192 MHz, more is already allocated to broadband and cellular services, there are land mobile radio operators, first responders, GPS, satellites, microwave systems, government services, and many others. But it is all we have to work with at the moment so we need to be creative in where we look for spectrum and where incumbents can be relocated. The easiest of all of these is the spectrum occupied by the TV stations since they can be located to lower in the spectrum and in each city we are only talking about a handful of TV transmitters. Moving them down in frequency will not require more than having to purchase a new transmitter and antenna. Consumers will not need new TV sets, cable and satellite companies that take their signals off the air and convert them to satellite or cable systems can simply change the receivers they are using, and it is a clean, fairly inexpensive proposition.

When the AWS-1 band was reclaimed by combining military and microwave bands, the cost of relocation was paid for by the winning bidders. Costs were high, but only because there were many microwave users in the 2-GHz portion of the spectrum. However it, too, did not mean moving any consumers or users or having them purchase new equipment on a different portion of the spectrum. We are running out of areas such as those and other relocations could cost a lot more, which is yet another reason the TV spectrum is such a good choice.

The NAB is strong and powerful in DC, but logic is on the side of those who understand that we will need more broadband spectrum soon, and that the existing TV spectrum is the best choice over the short haul. I am not at all sure that even the NAB with all of its clout will be able to fend off those that want this spectrum for their own and those that have the power to have it reallocated. The FCC’s incentive auction plan, where the TV stations share in the proceeds, makes little sense to me since the TV stations did not pay for the spectrum in the first place, but if that is what it takes, then I can live with it.

We cannot make more spectrum, we cannot grow it or do anything but use it more efficiently. One might argue that giving a consumer better and higher-speed connections so they can watch a streaming video almost no matter where they are is not as important as providing the services TV stations provide, but I would argue that a lot of TV content is simply on the same level as the YouTube videos people watch. I think the NAB will lose this battle; the question in my mind is not if but when. The longer the NAB can hold onto these channels, the longer it will take for us to begin to address our broadband spectrum issues.

Andrew M. Seybold

This spectrum is needed because of the increasing demand for wireless broadband services from the general public and businesses. An FCC report that supports this need states that by the year 2012, the United States will be short 95 MHz of broadband spectrum and that shortage will have grown to 250 MHz by 2015, in spite of the fact that new fourth-generation technologies are the most spectrum-efficient yet and later releases of LTE and WiMAX will be even more efficient. The demand for wireless broadband services is growing fast, and with companies such as Netflix and others offering streaming video movies, YouTube, and other video providers, demand will continue to grow.

Added to this is the growth in smartphone usage and the wide array of tablets coming onto the market in record numbers, all of which have at least one form of wireless broadband capability, and many of which have built in wide-area and local-area services. Tablets are selling well with Apple, of course, taking the lead, but there are many other products already in the market and I have seen predictions that there will be between 75 and 100 different tablets available by the end of this year. This means prices will come down quickly, making tablets even more affordable, thus further increasing sales.

So the stage is set. We need more broadband spectrum, but where, exactly, will it come from? The FCC and NTIA control all of the available wireless spectrum, with the NTIA controlling more for government use than is available via the FCC for commercial use un the United States, so some will come from the government side. The FCC is considering incentive auctions that will, it is thought, persuade TV broadcasters to move off of some of the upper TV channels and make them available for broadband use, and the FCC and Congress are studying overall spectrum usage to identify what might be repurposed for broadband services.

Of grave concern to me is that the FCC, as well as many within the Executive Branch and in Congress, believe that broadband is the only spectrum we will need going forward and, therefore, spectrum currently used for narrowband communications or Land Mobile Radio (LMR) and other services should be made available for broadband service. There is a major fallacy with this reasoning, which I will discuss below. They also believe that spectrum is spectrum and it really doesn’t matter where it is located. This, too, is false.

Broadband Is the Only Way Forward

As mentioned, there are many in D.C. who believe broadband is the only technology that will be important in the future. This is partly due to the fact that most of those in a position to determine the direction forward have only been exposed to cellular and now broadband systems and have no working knowledge of the value of narrowband or channelized communications systems (although cellular 1G and 2G services are narrowband in nature), and so they assume that because of the demand for wireless broadband we will be able to duplicate everything we now do and more over broadband spectrum.

CIOs and those familiar with wired broadband access have seen broadband used for both voice and data, so broadband is the logical choice for all wireless communications going forward. When you point out that there is still a need for push-to-talk (PTT) services and one-to-many communications, they say this can be done with broadband systems and point to Nextel, Sprint, Verizon, and AT&T, all of which offer PTT services with multiple group capabilities.

What they don’t seem to understand is that cellular phones and wireless broadband services ONLY work when within range of a cell site. If you are out of range, your device might as well be a paperweight. They seem to think the solution lies in wireless broadband coverage that is very good and getting better, and the government has pledged to bring broadband services to 95% of the U.S. population within the next few years.

They also seem to believe that, over time, broadband systems will add voice capabilities that will provide all of the services that are available over narrowband systems today. I believe this too is a faulty assumption. The ability to talk unit-to-unit or one unit to many might be called peer-to-peer communications. This is a vital element of many narrowband radio systems, more so for public safety mission-critical voice services than other services, but also important within conference centers, warehouses, and inside structures where today’s wireless cellular and broadband services do not provide coverage.

It is a fact of life that wireless networks become congested from time to time. Wireless broadband is a shared resource and when the number of people within a given cell sector is too great, some within that area may not have access to the system or have only very limited access. The answer from the broadband folks is that within the fourth-generation broadband technology is the ability to provide Quality of Service (QoS) and to some extent priority service assignments. However, even using these new tools, at some point there will be people who cannot access the system.

As for the features that are available today in the narrowband world and not in the broadband world, it is important to keep in mind that the standards bodies have a list of future requirements that are driven by the network operators and frankly, most of the network operators I have discussed this type of voice communications with have no desire, nor do they see a market for, device-to-device or peer-to-peer communications. They want all traffic to be routed via their network so they can charge for it, or at least count it toward our buckets of minutes. The chance of the voice requirements for narrowband finding their way into broadband technologies is slim to none.

What Are These Requirements?

I have listed these requirements below, and while I have divided them into groups, within each group there is a need for some of these voice capabilities to be treated as mission-critical, not only for public safety, but for other services as well. I am sure you are familiar with the needs of the public safety community, which needs voice communications when it needs it to save lives and property. An incident that could have been contained can grow in size and become a major incident if mission-critical voice capabilities are not available ALL of the time. And there are other situations that require mission-critical voice communications, for example, an electric utility truck in the field responding to a power pole down, or a high-voltage line over a car at an accident. Though it may not seem to be mission-critical, two-way radio service used by cement mixers certainly is. If the motor that turns the barrel full of concrete freezes or stops working for any reason, there is only a very short period of time in which to contact the plant for another truck. If the concrete in the barrel hardens before they can remove it, the barrel is ruined and it will cost the company thousands of dollars to replace it. Some of you may try to tell me that all of these communications can be handled via commercial networks, but I will argue that this is not true. Mission-critical voice communications means no dropped calls, not being out of coverage, and never being unable to talk to someone and request additional help.

Voice Requirements:

1. One-to many communications. It is important in many cases for everyone on a given channel to hear what is being said between the dispatcher and another unit or two units. This is most important in public safety dispatch because it enables other units to start moving toward an incident in case they are needed or it enables a Battalion Chief to know which units are assigned to an incident and what is left available for other emergencies within the area. But is it is also important for many other types of voice communications users, including utility companies and others who need to know what is happening within their coverage area.
2. Fast access to voice communications. Push-to-talk over land mobile radio is fast. You push the PTT button and within a fraction of a second you are able to communicate on the channel. This is vital for many types of land mobile radio services but again, especially for the public safety community.
3. Unit-to-unit and unit-to-multi-unit OFF NETWORK communications. This is a critical piece of narrowband communications for many different land mobile radio services that enables communications between and among units when they are out of the range of the base radio (cell site), when deep inside buildings, or if they want to move their voice traffic off the dispatch channel so it can be used by others.
4. Hands-free communications—not the type using a Bluetooth handset as we are accustomed to in cellular, but rather using a loud speaker and a PTT handset. In this type of LMR communications, the radio is mounted in a vehicle or on a belt with a speaker and microphone. The users are listening to traffic on the channel without having to use a phone, and when they need to talk, they pick-up the mic, press the PTT button, and can talk. The speaker phone feature in a typical commercial handset today is not capable of the volume needed for this type of communications in noisy surroundings, and in many cases, users are wearing gloves required for their work and need to be able to grasp the mic and press the PTT switch without having to remove the gloves.
5. Moving to a different channel. Two-way radios have multiple channels and changing from one channel to another is simple—merely turn the rotating knob on the radio. In a vehicular radio, it might be as simple as a push button and on a handheld it is usually a knob on the top of the radio. Typically, the radio is worn on the belt and changing channels is a one-handed affair. The operator reaches down, finds the knob, and twists it through the appropriate number of clicks. So moving from channel one to channel three means advancing the knob two clicks. Users don’t have to look at the radio or do anything other than turn the knob to change channels.

There are more requirements, but the ones I have listed are the most difficult to accomplish in a cellular or broadband system and are required by those who use land mobile radio systems.

I have yet to find any broadband equipment vendor that understands these requirements and when they are explained, that says they can or will soon be provided for over broadband. Another requirement for public safety that can also be required for large fleet operators is the need for multiple dispatch channels in a given city. Broadband MAY at some point support what is known as multi-cast, which is one-to-many communications. However, it will be limited in how many different sessions can be overlaid within the same geographic area.

In public safety it is not unusual to have one dispatch channel for each precinct overlaid with a few citywide calling channels. For example, one city uses sixteen different dispatch channels and three citywide channels for a total of nineteen channels. This is not a current capability in fourth-generation broadband systems nor is it planned. As an aside, third-generation systems already have multicasting capabilities, but to my knowledge, they have not been implemented in a single network because network operators do not see any demand for this type of service.

You cannot simply look at the technical requirements for voice services when comparing narrowband and broadband systems. In order to implement push-to-talk over LTE, for example, the network operator needs to also install what is called MMBS or Mobile Multi-Media Broadcast Services, which ads a great deal of expense to a network build-out. Again, while it is in the standard, there is no indication from network operators that they intend to include MMBS in their networks. This is an important point. Because something may be included in the standard does not mean it will be included in commercial networks. The operators will pick and chose which feature sets they want and install them while excluding others for which they see no demand.

One final point with PTT over commercial networks. Since the bandwidth is shared on a sector by sector basis, most of the units you need to communicate with are within a single sector (each cell sector is 120 degrees), thus using PTT to communicate with multiple units could mean there is not enough bandwidth in that sector to enable this type of communication. This is yet another reason public safety normally switches to simplex or peer-to-peer communications when working at an incident. Most incidents occur in a confined area and thus the number of users on a single channel could cause communications problems. Moving to peer-to-peer takes them off of the main dispatch channel and enables them to communicate among themselves without tying up a network.

Spectrum Issues

The second issue has to do with where, within the spectrum, broadband systems will be deployed. Today, commercial broadband is on 700, 800, 1900, and 2100 MHz in the United States. Of these, the 700 MHz and 800 MHz spectrum has the most coverage per cell site, but the others are usable. Typically, a wireless device will accommodate most of these bands plus Wi-Fi, GPS, and Bluetooth. This means that in each handset or tablet there are multiple antennas, filters, and what are known a duplexers, which permit transmitting and receiving at the same time using the same antenna for full two-way operation. It is amazing that design engineers have been able to build all of this into single devices. You might recall that the iPhone 4 uses the metal bands around the device for antennas and that there are issues with touching the sides of the phone and shorting out two antennas so that the range of the phone is greatly diminished.

The length of each antenna has to be calculated to cover a specific band. You cannot simply hook all of these different radios up to the same antenna and have anything work. The antenna is THE most critical part of any radio; the better it is, the better the device works. To give you an idea of the differences in length, the following are the lengths for what is called a quarter-wave antenna at each of the above frequencies. A quarter-wave means that the antenna is exactly one quarter of the length of the wavelength at that particular part of the spectrum.

For those who want to work the math for themselves, the formula used to derive the results is:

λf = c = 2.998*10⁸m/s (speed of light)
λ = wavelength in meters
f = frequency in Hz

700 MHz                                 4.0114″
800 MHz                                 3.51″
1900 MHz                                1.478″
2100 MHz                                1.33″

2.4 GHz Wi-Fi                          1.17″

As you can see, the length of the antenna is shorter as you go up in frequency. Also note that there is no correlation between any two of the bands, so using one antenna to cover two bands is difficult (it is done but it degrades the performance of the radio). There are ways to shorten this type of antenna but for our purposes I will use the quarter-wavelength size.

Now suppose new broadband spectrum is made available at 450 MHz. A quarter-wave antenna has to be 6.24″ long and if we go lower, say to 150 MHz, the length needs to be 18.72″. At some point then, it is no longer feasible to make use of lower spectrum for handheld broadband devices. This is a point that is missed by many of those in D. C. who are not engineers and do not understand the differences in antenna and other component sizes.

In addition to differences in length, each antenna also requires a duplexer and a series of filters. As with the antenna, at some point when moving lower in the spectrum, the components become too small to be useful in handheld devices or even in tablets or notebooks.

In talking with several device engineers, the consensus seems to be that today’s practical limits for broadband spectrum that could be used in conjunction with existing broadband spectrum would include spectrum above 500 MHz an below 2500 MHz (2.5 GHz). Therefore, some of the spectrum the FCC and NTIA are looking at for broadband is not suitable for handheld broadband devices. It might be applicable for point-to-multipoint broadband for backhaul or for rural or other fixed deployments, but not for inclusion in handheld products.

This indicates, to me, that the way to increase the amount of broadband spectrum is to move TV stations to spectrum below 500 MHz or below TV channel 20 (506-512 MHz). This would open up 190 MHz of ideal spectrum for broadband services and would account for almost 50% of the FCC’s five-year goal. Of course the NAB will fight this and it has a lot of clout, but this would be the most logical move.

Meanwhile, narrowband communications today is in the 900, 800, 700 and below 470 MHz areas and there are some LMR and public safety radio systems in the 470-512 MHz band on a city-by-city basis on unused TV channels. These systems should be left as they are so voice communications within fleets and for public safety should not be considered as spectrum to be repurposed for broadband communications.

Conclusions

All spectrum was not created equal and not all spectrum is suitable for mobile broadband usage. Further, broadband systems today and well into the future cannot provide the type of voice communications needed by those currently making use of narrowband spectrum for their land mobile radio systems.

Those in the federal government who are to decide which spectrum to repurpose for broadband services need to understand both the advantages and the downsides of the specific spectrum they are considering and understand the technical limitations of specific spectrum.

They also need to understand voice communications systems requirements and the fact that broadband cannot be all things to all people. Narrowband voice communications systems play an important part in our wireless ecosystem and will continue to be needed for many years to come.

Andrew M. Seybold

It is impossible to walk the entire show and since CES had been promoting the Wireless Pavilion, I spent most of my floor time on the second floor of the South Hall. From a wireless perspective, the highlight of the show was Verizon’s coming out party for its 4G LTE network. The network was launched in 38 cities in December but Verizon used CES to get the word out to companies at the show that will want to add 4G LTE capabilities to their products, buyers, consumers, and the business world.

Verizon made a big splash with a large booth and lots of demonstrations. For the press and analyst community, several press conferences and analyst luncheons were convened to talk about what 4G LTE can do and what devices will be available for the network this year. When the network was launched in December of 2010, there were two USB 4G LTE/3G modems. At CES, Verizon introduced companies that will be releasing devices for the network this year, and most will be available during the first and second quarters of the year.

Several new smartphones were shown. These devices will provide voice services on the Verizon CDMA 1X network and broadband data services on both the 3G and 4G LTE networks. They can be used as standalone devices or notebooks and other devices can be tethered to them so they become 4G LTE broadband modems. The phones that were shown were the HTC Thunderbolt running Android 2.2 and sporting a 1 GHZ Qualcomm Snapdragon Processor, the LG Revolution, also running Android 2.2, and the Motorola Droid Bionic that was talked about but not shown.

Samsung announced and showed its Galaxy small tablet, also with Android version 2.2. A day after the Verizon Press conference, Motorola announced its 10-inch Xoom tablet for the 4G LTE network. Novatel Wireless and Samsung rounded out the device announcements with their 4G LTE-to-Wi-Fi hotspot devices. (Note that the Samsung Galaxy and LG Smart Phone are also capable of being used as a Wi-Fi hotspot.) All in all, it was a busy show for Verizon and its partners. So far, I have received the Samsung Galaxy Tablet and an LG V600 USB 4G LTE modem and will be providing feedback on both devices as well as the 4G LTE network’s performance.

I am inclined to continue giving Verizon credit for setting realistic expectations for its 4G LTE network. It is stating, for the record, that on a loaded network users will be experiencing 5 to 12 Mbps from the network down to the device and between 2 and 5 Mbps from the device to the network. Earlier customers will experience faster data speeds until the network begins being loaded with customers, and Verizon is quick to point out that the initial speeds experienced by its 4G LTE customers will change over time. Still, its published data speeds are faster than many DSL and some cable modem connections provide today.

For the balance of my available floor time, I walked the wireless section of the show and attempted to count the number of tablet computers being shown (I finally gave up). It seems as though everyone has a tablet either on the market or ready for the market. I am using the term “tablet” to describe not only tablets such as the iPad, but also tablets that are called e-readers. We all know that the leaders in this field are the Apple iPad and Amazon Kindle. However, that does not stop the many vendors with their eyes on this market from trying their own designs.

I already mentioned the Samsung Galaxy and Motorola Xoom. Another tablet I spent time with was the RIM PlayBook. My first impression is very positive and I really like the idea of being able to use my BlackBerry as a wireless wide-area modem for the Xoom. It is fast and responsive, and while it has a smaller form factor than the iPad, it is easy to hold and view. I have found that using the iPad in place of a Kindle is a good experience, but holding it tires my arm after awhile. If I am in an airplane and put it on the tray table it works okay, but I can see where the PlayBook would be a better fit as a device that replaces my Kindle and enables me to do a lot more.

I also was intrigued by the tablet NEC was showing. It is scheduled to be introduced in Japan first, then into the United States. What makes it unique is that it is actually two tablets hinged together like a book. The screen size on each side is about 7 inches and it is great for those who are still transitioning from the world of print media to e-readers and tablets. I was also impressed with the fact that I could use one side for browsing the web and the other side for looking at my results. On my desktop, I have three monitors: one for email, one for work, and the third for research. When on the road, I miss having two or more monitors. I will have to play with the NEC tablet more, but I certainly like the concept and unique design.

As I walked down the aisles, one of my business partners asked why all tablets are black and all e-readers are white or beige. I don’t have an answer, but since there are so many “skins” available to cover them, perhaps the color doesn’t matter, but from what I have seen, all tablets are certainly black. Speaking of skins, it always amazes me how fast the aftermarket follows devices. There were racks full of tablet cases, covers, and skins, all sorts of adapters for connecting tablets to other devices, cables for tethering tablets to smartphones, and all sorts of add-ons.

In our Blog this week, Bob Chapin, one of my business partners, shares his view of the tablet market. I agree with him in regard to the number of tablets that will be left standing at the end of the year. Feature creep has already begun: internal hard drives (reducing battery life), better screens, and additional features and functions that vendors hope will give them a leg up. Yet it appears to me that there will only be about ten survivors by the end of the year, and they will all be from well-known companies.

So far, Google’s Android operating system seems to be the most popular tablet OS. The iPad uses its own, the RIM PlayBook uses an OS by QNX, but the bulk of the devices are falling into the Android camp. This will make it even more interesting for the vendors since they will have to find other ways to differentiate their tablets, perhaps by improving the user experience of the OS or perhaps by other means. In any event, the large number of 7-inch and 10-inch tablets running Android will make it difficult for customers to choose which one is best for them. Perhaps customers will stick to brands they already know: Motorola, Dell, Samsung, HTC, and a few others. As I was writing this, Lenovo announced a new division to concentrate on tablets and smartphones. Given its history of innovation, Lenovo could emerge as a major player, especially if it spends some time developing products more suited to the business customer.

The Android tablets won’t give RIM much competition because of the tight integration of RIM’s devices and the corporate back-end services. Lenovo, whose black ThinkPad has been a corporate tool, could challenge RIM, but if Lenovo sticks to Android I am not sure it will be able to pull it off.

On Thursday night we held our first Wireless Dinner at CES. This was our 21st annual dinner. The first ones were held during Comdex and then we moved to CTIA. We decided to move to CES this year because so many consumer products are becoming wirelessly-enabled and the CEA, which sponsors CES, understands the importance of wireless to the consumer industry and has embraced wireless as one of its major vendor segments. The dinner was another success, but we relearned a lesson we had learned during our Comdex days. With 140,000 attendees at CES, taxis and shuttle buses were packed and many of our guests were late arriving. Next year we will move the time for the dinner back half an hour and look into providing our own shuttles for those who need transportation from the convention center.

I would like to thank all of our sponsors for making this dinner possible and they are: Alcatel-Lucent, Buongiorno, Motorola, Panasonic Solutions Company, Qualcomm, Research In Motion, Verizon Communications, Voice Assist, BlueAnt Wireless, and Wilson Electronics. We have posted all of the pictures of the event. We are already planning our 22nd dinner at CES in 2012, and hope you will join us or that you might consider sponsoring this long-running social networking event. To my knowledge, it is the longest running wireless event in the industry.

CES was busy for all who attended. I really enjoy this show because I get to see what is coming in 2011 from many different companies. This year was no exception, although I wish I had had more time to visit some of the other pavilions. Technology is advancing at a wild pace in many segments of the electronics industry and it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep up, but this keeps life interesting.

Andrew M. Seybold