FCC Considers Expanding Unlicensed Spectrum

Syntari writes "Reuters is reporting that the US Federal Communications Commission has begun to seek comment (the first step in promulgating regulations) "on whether unlicensed devices, like wireless home networks for Internet service, could operate on television broadcast airwaves in areas where they are not being used or at times when the spectrum lay fallow". The news release by the FCC itself, in MS-Word format, is online. This is pretty big, as these things go - especially since television spectrum, being of a wavelength that easily penetrates walls and is not overly affected by rain or snow, is ideal for wireless services. Should any slashdotter actually want to submit a comment (gasp! could it be?), read this first (FCC's rules on electronic comment submission), and then go here."

Comments

Attention Slashdotters

[s20451]

Please try to avoid sending the FCC your comments such as, "F1RST P05T!!#@!" and "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of unlicensed spectrum". I'm also pretty sure that the FCC is uninterested on what's happening in Soviet Russia.

Where are Congress' open hands?

[InterruptDescriptorT]

Unlicensing the spectrum, in these times of budget deficits and an impending war, doesn't seem like a good idea fiscally.

When the UHF TV spectrum for channels 69-83 was removed in favour of fixed mobile communications over a decade ago, the bidding brought in hundreds of millions of dollars to the US government. With the burgeoning demand for wireless devices that is growing even in this fallow economy, where is the benefit to the country's coffers in unlicensing the spectrum?

Is it that perhaps this will spur new R&D in wireless devices and protocols to use this new spectrum, returning value to the economy this way? Or is there something I'm missing?

Please don't get me wrong: I am not necessarily in favour of the spectrum being one big free-for-all unlicensed hodgepodge, but I wonder why Congress hasn't stepped in and seen this as an idea to raise funds.

Re:Where are Congress' open hands?

[{tele}machus_*1]

I'm confused by your comment. Do you mean that the spectrum should not be unlicensed, because licensing makes gobs of money? If so, keep in mind that when spectrum is licensed, only those with gobs of money can afford it. Remember about two years ago when the FCC decided to expand the spectrum for amateur radio stations and lower the barriers to home radio broadcasting? Then all the big money radio conglomerates (and, yes, even NPR) stepped up their lobbying and Congress shot the whole thing down. I commend the FCC for continuing to try to make the spectrum available to the people who supposedly own it: the public, i.e., all of us. If the FCC is actually able to successfully unlicense this spectrum, just think about the potential for expanded home-brewed WiFi networks. Users could actually begin to successfully challenge the telecom monopolies and get the service we want.

Re:Where are Congress' open hands?

[imadork]

When the UHF TV spectrum for channels 69-83 was removed in favour of fixed mobile communications over a decade ago, the bidding brought in hundreds of millions of dollars to the US government. With the burgeoning demand for wireless devices that is growing even in this fallow economy, where is the benefit to the country's coffers in unlicensing the spectrum?

I thought the reason for the FCC's existence was to manage and regulate something that already belongs to the public. When determining how best to use this spectrum, the public's interest should be the biggest thing (some would say the only thing) taken into consideration. Using the spectrum as a cash cow should not.

Spectrum was licensed for broadcast in the past because it was the most efficient use of the public resource. With the development of more wireless products that rely on the unlicensed band, as well as less dependance on analog TV channels, unlicensing spectrum may now be the most efficient use of it, from the public's perspective.

Everyone can be a broadcaster now, in their own home, with minimum effort; thirty years ago, that was not the case. (There are always hobbyists, but that still takes up effort and time...). There is little value in locking up spectrum that can be more efficiently used by small-time "broadcasters".

Re:Where are Congress' open hands?

[Rik van Riel]

The question is, what is worth more to the american people: a piece of radio spectrum which is freely usable for everybody, or a one-time $10/person tax cut ?

I'm pretty sure that the radio spectrum is worth a lot more, since it opens up a large amount of opportunities for new consumer devices and house&garden communication.

In fact, if consumer devices show up I'm pretty sure the government would get more in sales tax on those devices than it would get if it sold off the spectrum.

Re:Where are Congress' open hands?

[Zathrus]

Excellent comment.

That said, the spectrum is viewed as a cash cow now. And while I think Congress and the government in general is seriously overvaluing the airwaves, I'd be surprised if the FCC went with this plan. The FCC has been pretty deep in corporate pockets for the past 20 years, and the current board is even further from "public interest" than most. The only way I might see them going for it is if they happen to have stock in companies that would benefit from unlicensed wireless.

Yeah, I'm a bit of a pessimist regarding the current board. Just too many shitty decisions (must carry not applying to HDTV on cable and telcos required to cut their own throats with DSL while not requiring the same of cable being the two biggest I can think of offhand).

And while unlicensing spectrum sounds all fine and dandy, there still have to be a modicum of rules around it. I'd still want to see specified bands for particular purposes, otherwise you could have applications stepping all over one another (no... we haven't seen that at all in the 2.4 GHz spectrum. Uh uh. No problems with cordless phones and wireless networks).

As you say, there may be little value in locking up spectrum now, but I don't want Joe down the street using that unlicensed spectrum to broadcast his own public access TV channel while I'm trying to use it to surf the net.

Re:Where are Congress' open hands?

[lysurgon]

Unlicensing the spectrum, in these times of budget deficits and an impending war, doesn't seem like a good idea fiscally.

I disagree. While unlicensing a chunk of the airwaves won't bring in a big bonanza chunk of money, it will hell promote new industry and long term growth in the economy.

The airwaves are one of the bases for ecnomic infrastructure in the "Information Age." The net economic effect of allowing thousands of individuals and businesses to make the most of this chunk of spectrum far outweighs any one-time payment from existing business groups, who in all truth probably wouldn't make much of it anyway.

So the question is should the govenrment seek to bolster it's coffers once by selling spectrum to proprietary interests, or promote the economy as a whole over the next decade by letting us all use it. I think the choice is clear.

Re:Where are Congress' open hands?

[aaarrrgggh]

Is it that perhaps this will spur new R&D in wireless devices and protocols to use this new spectrum, returning value to the economy this way? Or is there something I'm missing?

Look at the adoption rates of WiFi vs. Cellular phones. Look at other novel projects (Ricochet as an example)... there is a need for unlicensed spectrum, and the FCC's role is to allocate that resource.

As for revenue... selling off everything to the highest bidder is not necissarily the best use of a limited resource. It is much cheaper to raise income taxes to cover a budget shortfall than get a grant from a for-profit corporation that won't see returns for a decade.

If there isn't more unlicensed spectrum available, what will happen to things like software radio, which can use the spectrum more efficiently, and not have it dedicated for a single function? In the long run, doesn't that pose a greater opportunity?

Re:Where are Congress' open hands?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the FCC is actually able to successfully unlicense this spectrum, just think about the potential for expanded home-brewed WiFi networks. Users could actually begin to successfully challenge the telecom monopolies and get the service we want.

This could have potentially disastrous consequences! Allowing people unlicensed access to broadcast their speech over the airwaves could destroy the American way of life as we know it! You can't just let Joe Shmoe come along and say whatever they want over the air, it's unheard of. Without a stabilizing force like a large multinational radio conglomerate or a liberal "public" national radio network pulling the strings people could present ideas that go against the mainstream media's views of the world. People would be extremely confused at who to believe when presented with multiple conflicting ideas.

first step towards mandatory HDTV

[RevDobbs]

hmm... seems the best way to mandate HDTV is to start giving away the current TV spectrum.

But I guess this can also open up true "public" TV stations, broadcasting for anyone who has an "old-fashioned" TV set...

more info

[shaklee]

more on this topic here: http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Abernathy/2002/spkqa21 8.pdf

For those without MS Word

[Anonymous Coward]

FCC BEGINS INQUIRY REGARDING ADDITIONAL
SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES

As part of the ongoing effort to promote efficient use of spectrum, the FCC today asked for public comment on the possibility of permitting unlicensed transmitters to operate in additional frequency bands. Such changes could allow the development of new and innovative types of unlicensed devices. This inquiry examines new and creative ways to utilize the spectrum resource more efficiently by considering new spectral frontiers for unlicensed use.

In a Notice of Inquiry approved today, the Commission stated that the current rules for unlicensed transmitters have been a tremendous success. A wide variety of devices have been developed and introduced under those rules for consumer and business use, including cordless telephones, home security systems, electronic toys, anti-pilfering and inventory control systems, and computer wireless local area networks. The success of those rules shows that there could be significant benefits to the economy, businesses and consumers in making additional spectrum available for unlicensed transmitters. Unlicensed transmitters may be operated under the provisions of Part 15 of the Commission's Rules. Part 15 transmitters generally operate on frequencies shared with authorized services at relatively low power, levels and must operate on a non-interference basis.

The Notice seeks comments on whether unlicensed operations should be permitted in additional frequency bands. Specifically, it seeks comments on the feasibility of allowing unlicensed devices to operate in the TV broadcast spectrum and locations and times when spectrum is not being used. It also seeks comment on the feasibility of permitting unlicensed devices to operate in other bands, such as the 3650-3700 MHz band, at power levels higher than other unlicensed transmitters with only the minimal technical requirements necessary to prevent interference to licensed services.

The Commission noted that there have been significant advances in technology that may make it feasible to design new types of unlicensed devices that are able to share spectrum in the TV bands without causing interference to licensed services operating in those bands. Advances in computer technology make it possible to design equipment that could monitor the spectrum to detect frequencies already in use and ensure that transmissions only occur on open frequencies. The low cost of GPS equipment could allow a device to determine its location and use information from a database to determine whether there are any licensed operations in its vicinity. Equipment can be designed that is frequency agile, with the capability of changing frequency as needed to avoid interference to licensed users.

Action by the Commission December 11, 2002 by Notice of Inquiry (FCC 02-328). Chairman Powell, Commissioners Abernathy and Copps, with Commissioner Martin approving in part and dissenting in part, Commissioner Adelstein not participating and Chairman Powell, Commissioners Abernathy, Copps and Martin issuing separate statements.

OET Docket No. 02-380
- FCC -

Office of Engineering & Technology Contact: Hugh L. Van Tuyl (202) 418-7506

what about later ?

[tmark]

in areas where they are not being used

Here's what I don't understand: If they open up these frequencies now, doesn't this mean that these areas are never going to get tv signals over the air ? And, if these frequencies aren't being used now, doesn't this imply that the utility of e.g. wireless is somewhat diminished in these areas, if only because it seems likely that there aren't that many people there ??

This seems somewhat shortsighted. To paraphrase the old children's saw, once they give it away,they're never going to be able to take it back again.

Re:what about later ?

[ibennetch]

If they open up these frequencies now, doesn't this mean that these areas are never going to get tv signals over the air ?

No, the advent of DTV [2] assures that this will happen. The FCC, NAB, and networks seem to be pushing DTV on us - a lot of people I know don't want it (it means being forced to buy new TV sets, digital-rights management, etc). But the FCC's clear on the matter; we're going to have DTV (eventually[2]) - DTV uses a different set of frequencies so within a relatively short amount of time, all the standard television frequencies we use now will become quiet and unused.

And, if these frequencies aren't being used now, doesn't this imply that the utility of e.g. wireless is somewhat diminished in these areas, if only because it seems likely that there aren't that many people there ??

That depends on what type of wireless system this is talking about - and I just don't know. Short range, say; between houses or you and your neighbors house, no problem. Long range - sure, your comment has merit to some extent, but remember that most TV frequencies are taken up. This is due to interference, signal propagation, and other things that prevent two tv stations on adjacent channels from being anywhere near each other. The same problem would plague high-powered/long-range wireless services.

footnotes:
[1] - DTV includes such services as HDTV
[2] - the date's been pushed back from (i think) 2004 to 2007, and probably will be pushed back again.

Right Direction

[4of12]

Compared to many decades ago when the FCC was formed and for good reason, there's now a lot more ability to precisely control EM radiation and at a lot lower powers. The cost of transmitters and receivers and the advent of digital electronics has changed the situation dramatically.

A lot of convenient devices and applications result from unlicensed spectrum at limited power levels.

Society as a whole stands to benefit if more unlicensed spectrum is made available. Just do it in a way that does not technically (not politically) cause degradation in the licensed uses of the EM spectrum.

Why the Benevolence?

[zentec]

I find it difficult to believe that anyone within Congress will let this happen.

First, the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) will have kittens at the mere suggestion of re-assignment of spectrum, either as a primary or secondary use. They'll have an absolute tirade if the proposal calls for secondary use of television spectrum. As well they should, part of their job is lobbying in Washington for the broadcasters.

I also can not believe the incumbent telcos will stand idle for this either. After the huge investments in (the soon to die) 3G wireless, they're going to need help from Congress and a lot more of those annoying "MOTO" commercials with the extra fine print that mentions that the cool stuff needs to be downloaded -- and paid for on a per-kilobyte basis.

However, if this were come to fruition, I can only see advantages. *Finally* the public gets to use its own valuable spectrum as opposed to having it auctioned off or sold to the highest bidder. The very spectrum that was formerly used by broadcasters to effectively print money will be put back into the hands of the people that allegedly own it.

Technically, these frequencies should allow for greater range and avoid the ever present foliage and weather losses. Current 2.4/5.2 gig wireless networks are cool, but you're not going to see competitive wireless services built around them as you simply need way too many access points. Maybe this is what's needed to put real broadband into the hands of people like myself who live in rural under-served markets. It may also serve as a welcome kick in the shorts to the likes of Comcast/Covad/pick-yer-most-reviled-broadband-prov ider and introduce some competition.

I'm hopefull, but still a pragmatic realist about it all. Congress doesn't necessarily do what's in the best interest of the people, so if you're in favor of this, start writing your letters.

Yes!

[MacAndrew]

If you've ever seen a map of the frequency spectrum, the dominance of TV signals is astonishing, all the more so with double-wide HDTV. If I recall, nearly every radio (audio or navigation) frequency you can think of takes up less spectrum than a single TV station. I love TV and all, but think of the possibilities if we merely dropped Gilligan's Island reruns (haven't you seen them all before?). :)

The expression "at times when the spectrum lay fallow" is interesting. To let a field lie fallow is to take it out of production for a season or more to allow it to replenish its nutrients, so that desirable crops will grow better later. A complimentary approach is to rotate crops, alternating ones that, say, replenish the bioavailable nitrogen in the soil, with others that deplete it. (I see that there is also something called "improved fallow".)

I assume checmical fertilizers have made these quaint practices obsolescent in the developed world (except for organic farmers perhaps) but what an intriguing metaphor for the airwaves. Perhaps if you hold off on passing out frequencies, more interesting uses will come along.

Just as a footnote, I don't remember demanding HDTV, I barely tolerate TV because of programming not resolution, and I haven't been happy at the industry-driven FCC resolution to force all of us to upgrade. I realize they faced a chicken-or-egg dilemma with introducing HDTV and digital signals to a skeptical public, but I would have preferred methods other than a gov't mandate. If I recall, the bandwidth was handed out for free, an interesting sacrifice given all the money made from auctioning cellphone channels. Will there come a time we regret dedicating so much spectrum to it? Or will cable make broadcast a thing of the past, anytime soon? Will HDTV flop, driving some stations to seek more useful applications for their free spectrum? Do I have even some of my facts right? :)

Read the articles first??

[goldspider]

"Should any slashdotter actually want to submit a comment (gasp! could it be?), read this first (FCC's rules on electronic comment submission), and then go here."

You MUST be new here, right?

Re:Other ideas

[Gabrill]

2) 90% of wireless adoption is due to laziness--people just don't want to run a wire from their TV to the speakers or from the computer to the toaster, or whatever. What about another building code change to run fiber throughout the house with a lot of available plugs? That way the problems that wireless (claims to) address can be met in other ways. What you are calling laziness is often not the case. Not everyone owns their own home, or is brave enough to 'mod' the one they have. Also, which do you think will sell better? Devices that network by requiring extensive attic crawling, or ones that just work by placing them within a few hundred feet of the next one? Good point on the security, though.

UHF.COM

[Myriad]

Put down your web search...
Throw out your WIRED Mag...
Put away your CAT5...
There's no need to go wiring...
Don't you know that we control the ping...
We control the pong, too...
We gonna make a WIFI user out of you...
That's what we gonna do now...

Don't change the location bar...
Don't touch that bookmark...
We got it all on UHF.COM...
Kick off your sneakers...
Stick around for a /.ing...
We got it all on UHF.COM...
Don't worry 'bout your pingtimes...
Forget about your upstream provider...
Just crank up the shoutcastin' volume...
And yank off the coax cable...
We got it all, we got it all, we got it all on UHF.COM...

Disconnect the phone and leave the modem in the sink...
You better put away your homework...
Frag time ain't no time to think...
All you do is make yourself a cantenna...
Press your face right up against the screen...
We gonna show you thangs you ain't ever seen...
If you know what I mean, now...

We got it all on UHF.COM...

From the FCC release:

[raygundan]

"The low cost of GPS equipment could allow a device to determine its location and use information from a database to determine whether there are any licensed operations in its vicinity. Equipment can be designed that is frequency agile, with the capability of changing frequency as needed to avoid interference to licensed users."

This means the devices will include the additional expense of a GPS chip and some way to contact the database to check if the location is safe for the frequency it wants, but this is certainly affordable. Heck, you can get a $130 phone from Sprint PCS that does all that (GPS and data network over 1xRTT). So, worst case, these devices will cost as much as a wireless NIC and a cell phone at the start. It is also possible that the database could be stored locally on the device (since TV stations don't move too often) with an expiration date, and need to be reloaded via a cable at some point or the device quits.

But cost aside, the problems you mention are addressed already in the proposal.

We need it - Tell the FCC

[karmawarrior]

There's always going to be a strong case for sectioning off some parts of the radio spectrum simply to make sure that some services can operate uninterrupted - whether those are emergency services, cell phones, even to some extent radio and television. But the fact that some sectioning is necessary (or, in the case of radio and TV, desirable) has lead to a somewhat absurd situation where a substantial majority of the usable electromagnetic spectrum has been designated off limits. That's absurd, it's a block on innovation and on telecommunications, and arguably we would have seen a great deal more in that field over the last few decades especially had more than a few megahertz been open.

Most countries have taken this approach. In America, the FCC has taken on a role not merely of allocating frequencies but of controlling, insofar as they constitutionally can, what travels over them. The absurd limits on the 2.4GHz band, created in part not to help foster private telecommunications but to make microwave ovens legal, mean that communications over these bands have to be ultra-local in scale and have lead to conflicts between household and office equipment that should not exist. When my microwave oven is on, despite the heavy shielding, my Seimens Gigaset phone's reception is audibly impaired. I gather a common complaint is that 2.4GHz phones tend to interfere with 802.11* wireless networks too. And all because of artificial scarcity.

In the UK, until the mid-eighties, it was virtually impossible to use any kind of wireless device without a licence. An opening up made portable telephones and similar devices possible, but innovation was hampered for the longest time because of this.

A genuine opening up - with some restrictions for some bands to reduce the chances of a destructive tragedy of the commons, but otherwise an unrestricted unrestrained environement - of large amounts of the spectrum, possibly insofar as practically possible going for the long term goal of opening up 90% of the airwaves, would create opportunities both for localised and long distance communications to a degree currently unthought of. Private, community owned, relay networks could create sane and affordable telephone provision, last mile provision for Internet type networks would become easier and could work on a broadcast rather than point-to-point model. Devices designed to operate within homes could work without a maze of unintelligable cabling - your TV and receiver could receive digital signals directly from a DVD player anywhere in the house, as long as the signals followed agreed upon standards. It'd be ironic to see "plug and play" type functionality built into every household media device to free itself from the use of plugs and sockets.

At the moment, the government and FCC has no incentive whatsoever to do any of this. Governments have recently (last 20 years or so) seen rationing the electromagnetic spectum as an opportunity to raise stealth taxes. In an era where everyone looks at their income tax bills and blames the government, but looks at their cellphone bills and blames the cellphone companies, it makes sense for them to lighten the load on income taxes by moving to indirect taxation such as that generated by auctioning spectrum. This is a disasterous policy as not merely does it undermine the innovation that could be fostered in an environment of free spectrum, but it constitutes a form of regressive taxation as certain types of communication becomes more and more important and necessary because of network effects. I've known employers that refuse to employ people for certain types of job who will not supply a working cellphone number.

The spectrum will not open itself. The government needs to act, and act in the public interest, not what it can get away with to raise funds on-the-sly. Unless people are prepared to actually act, not just talk about it on Slashdot, nothing will ever get done. Apathy is not an option.

You can help by getting off your rear and writing to the FCC, your congressman or senator. Tell them that innovation and freedom is important to you, and that it's important that the airwaves be opened up to foster a genuinely innovative and progressive culture where communications are unhampered by artificial scarcities, monopolies, and restraints. Tell them that you appreciate the work being done into creating a large ISM band, but if these efforts fail, you will be forced to use less and less secure and intelligently designed wireless technologies, to get around the bottlenecks the current ISM bands impose. Let them know that SMP may make or break whether you can efficiently deploy OpenBSD on your workstations and servers. Explain the concerns you have about freedom, openness, and choice, and how opening up the airwaves can help all three. Let them know that this is an issue that effects YOU directly, that YOU vote, and that your vote will be influenced, indeed dependent, on his or her policy on opening up the airwaves.

You CAN make a difference. Don't treat voting as a right, treat it as a duty. Keep informed, keep your political representatives informed on how you feel. And, most importantly of all, vote.

Not only Word

[nosilA]

If you change the last three characters of the URL to pdf, you will see the pdf version, likewise with txt. I'm not sure why the story submitter chose to link to the word version.

Every official release from the FCC is in all three formats.

-Alison

Re:Anyone Else Complain to FCC about "Word"?

[nosilA]

How about trying PDF or text if you don't want the word version. In this case, the story submitter messed up, not the FCC.

-Alison

Re:dont get so excited...

[AlphaOne]

and carry LESS information than 2.4Ghz the amount of information you are able to carry in a frequency channel is DIRECTLY coupled with the frequency and width of the channel you use. in the 50MHZ range where channels 2 and 3 reside you CANNOT transmit very much without using alot of the spectrum with a wide channel. I.E. you are using tons of frequencies to transmit the same information that is able to be transmitted on a few in the higher frequencies. and to do this you need Gobs more power.

Huh? The bandwidth required is not dependent on frequency. A television channel takes 6MHz no matter where you put it in the spectrum... 50MHz, 400MHz, 1.2GHz, etc.

The power required for an equivalent coverage area varies, yes, but the bandwidth required does not. If you modulate a 10MHz carrier with a television signal, you'll suck up 6MHz of space.

I think this is a common misconception because of the way the spectrum is currently laid out. The reason that high-bandwidth items are higher in frequency is simply that they were developed later in history than other uses. Therefore, they got higher frequencies because those below it were allocated and didn't provide enough available space for that particular purpose.

If you could find a 25MHz chunk of bandwidth at any frequency you could run 802.11 stuff. Your power requirements would vary, of course, and your antenna would change size (and perhaps shape).

It's not magical. we use 2.4ghz because at low powers and small channel widths we can spew lots of information... as your frequency goes down the wider you need to be and the more powerful you need to be.

That is just wrong. We use 2.4GHz because that's where the available spectrum is, not because there's something magical about 2.4GHz itself.

The only thing special about higher frequencies versus lower ones is propogation concerns (higher frequencies tend to go less distance with an equivalent power output) and antenna design.

The bandwidth required does not change.