Now that the reserve price has been met, the open platform requirements on the C block 700 MHz spectrum auction are a guarantee. So what's left to do? Well, let's watch what happens:

Point your browser to:
https://auctionsignon.fcc.gov/signon/index.htm

Under the "Public Access" section, choose the "Auction 73" option from the pull-down menu and click the "Go" button.

Then click the "Results" tab (up at the top of the page).

Why watch? Because one of two things is about to happen -- either the results will keep going up (the current bid as of a few minutes ago is $4,713,823,000) or they'll stay the same. While bidders are anonymous and I can't guarantee anything, chances are, if the bid stays the same, there's only one bidder (probably Google unless Verizon got in just under the wire); if the results keep going up, then there's at least a couple groups bidding.

If the results keep going up, could be that Google is actually making a play for the spectrum (or it could be that two incumbents are battling it out); if things stay the same, well, could be that Google's the only one bidding.

Either way, with new rounds happening every 30 minutes -- it's a way to watch the future of telecommunications unfolding right before your very eyes. Personally, I've got my office desktop computer tuned to this while I'm working on my laptop.

Exciting stuff!

For long-time readers, you know that I've been working on the 3650-3700 MHz FCC proceedings for a few years nowthe FCC created a rather unique quasi-(un)licensing rule for the band, allowing community networkers, WISPs, and other interested parties to access this resource. By 2007 we began to see the widespread availability of 3650-3700 MHz equipment.

I've begun to collect data on real-world use of 3650-3700 MHz equipment (yes, it's already being implemented in networks across the country):

WISPs have been leading the charge and people are reporting 15km non-line-of-sight (NLOS) connectivity with 3650-3700 MHz (operating at 10W) -- which is a huge boost over 802.11. Meanwhile, capacity seems to be hovering around 15 Mb per 7.5 MHz (or 20Mb per 10MHz) -- so 100Mb connections over 15km without line of sight are quite feasible using this band. All in all, that's pretty impressive for first-generation equipment. The equipment vendor Aperto is claiming that their new equipment will get 20Mb per 7MHz (so you can see the development curve is already fairly steep).

To give you a feel for the real-world implications, folks testing things out reported, "6mb/s indoor at 2 miles NLOS. The base station was a 1 sector install using diversity at approximately 50ft up on tower using 120 degree sectors" -- try to get that with an 802.11 access point.

Sooner or later metro wireless folks will figure it out (at which point they're deploy like crazy before realizing the capacity limits given population/user density). Meanwhile, I think it's fairly clear vindication as to the import and utility of the band. Hopefully, municipal networkers will check with objective experts before jumping onto what is sure to be a 3650-3700 MHz bandwagon, but all in all, this is great news for wireless networkers everywhere.

Hello World, I'm Josh King, Network Engineer at Acorn Active Media Foundation (http://www.acornactivemedia.com) and the Champaign-Urbana Wireless Internet Foundation (http://www.cuwin.net). Sascha asked me to contribute to this blog, so here goes with my first post.

I doubt it will be surprising to anyone used to dealing with big telecom companies, but Verizon is doing its level best to screw consumers when it comes to the 700 MHz spectrum auction. If you're following the auction, then you probably know that the process of deciding what to do with this precious section of radio spectrum is very contentious. Google, that organization I always hold a cautious liking for, has successfully introduced what they term an "open network" requirement into the terms of the auction. As Sascha detailed in an earlier post, this introduces an obligation to make sure that any devices utilizing this spectrum will be able to roam freely across networks without vendor lock-in. Of course Verizon can't be having with that, so on September 10th they filed suit against the FCC. From the request for judicial review:

"Verizon Wireless seeks judicial review on the grounds that the [700 MHz spectrum auction requirements] exceeds the Commission's authority under the Communications Act of 1934 [...] violates the United States Constitution, violates the Administrative Procedure Act [...] and is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence and otherwise contrary to law."

I am not a telecommunications lawyer, so I couldn't speak to whether the FCC's actions could be construed as a violation of the Communications Act of 1934. Legal basis or no, I think we can obviously see where Verizon's interests lie vis-a-vis the consumers (i.e. bilking them). I know I would better respect a company or individual doing something procedurally incorrect for morally right reasons than doing something legally justifiable for motivations of greed.

For those of you following the M2Z saga, the latest is that the FCC rejected M2Z's application and is releasing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to figure out what to do with the band. Here's an article from Network World that provides a good analysis:

From: http://www.networkworld.com

Is free nationwide wireless broadband dead?
Future of the 2155-2175MHz band up for debate

By Brad Reed, Network World, 09/11/07

Much to the dismay of some smaller Internet providers, the fate of the 2155-2175MHz band is still up in the air.

The band, which is unlicensed and unused, has been sought by companies, such as M2Z Networks and NetfreeUS, as a means to provide nationwide wireless broadband services. Each of the two companies had applied separately with the Federal Communications Commission for the rights to operate the band and use it to make a nationwide wireless network. However, the FCC announced Aug. 31 that it was dismissing both applications, and thus leaving the band’s future uncertain.

In a statement supporting the applications’ dismissal, commissioner Michael Copps said that “the proper way to allocate this spectrum in the manner that best serves the public interest is to conduct a general rulemaking.”

He described four different options that the commission should consider for dealing with the band, including opening it up for unlicensed use, designating it as an “open access model that would combine wholesale broadband access and a Carterfone mandate,” using it to create a free nationwide broadband network that would be supported both through advertising revenue and revenue generated from premium service fees and licensing it through an open auction.

In a separate statement, commissioner Jonathan Adelstein expressed frustration with what he said was a lack of progress by the commission in designating rules for the band’s use.

“I’m disappointed that despite the aggressive interest in and availability of this spectrum, the commission is only now expressing intent to seek comment on service rules for this band,” he said.

The companies that filed applications to operate the band haven’t given up, though. Shant Hovnanian, the CEO of Speedus Corp., the managing member of NetfreeUS, says that his company hoped to work with the FCC to shape their decision on the new rules.

“We are hopeful that there’s an expedited process now to establish rules where we could still be victorious in getting our format approved,” says Hovnanian, who wants to see the band used to create a free wireless network that will be funded by advertising. The idea is to make the Internet more like analog radio and television, where people can tune in for free in exchange for being exposed to advertisements.

M2Z CEO John Muleta says he would like to see the commission adopt rules similar to what M2Z had proposed in its application. M2Z’s original proposal would have given the company operating rights for the 2155-2175 MHz band in exchange for developing a nationwide wireless network that the company claimed would have provided free Internet service to 95% of Americans. The network would have operated at a speed of 384Kps, and would have also featured an obscenity filter administered by M2Z’s own National Broadband Radio Service.

Muleta says that while he’s happy to see the FCC undertaking rulemaking sessions for the band, their actions may be too little, too late.

“We’d have welcomed this if they’d started it 15 months ago,” he says. “A lot of the big carriers want to forestall competition, and the longer they make us wait to deliver our services, the better it is for the . . . Americans are dying for broadband, and it’s not that it’s not available, it’s just incredibly expensive. We’re offering a free service that’s being retailed today for $40 to $90 a month.”

Mike Jude, a senior analyst at Nemertes Research, says that his preferred solution for the band would be to open it up for unlicensed use, which he says could open the door for more innovation akin to the early days of citizens’ band radio, which he describes as “a free-for-all that ultimately led to a lot of interesting ideas.” However, he says the prospects for getting the current FCC to make the 2155-2175MHz band unlicensed are grim.

“The FCC has long history of wringing its hands in public, and often what they do is most politically expedient thing, which means going to go through the same traditional auction,” he says. “That seems to be the path of least resistance, and it has a lot of attraction for politicians.”

Sascha Meinrath, the research director for the New America Foundation's Wireless Future Program, says that any of the four options for the band laid out by Copps could be beneficial depending on the details. In particular, the ideas he finds most appealing are either making the 2155-2175 MHz band unlicensed or using it to provide a nationwide broadband service free of charge. However, he sees some potential concerns with some of the proposals laid out by M2Z and NetfreeUS. Obscenity filters such as the one proposed by M2Z, for instance, give him pause.

“You’re either providing Internet access -- and the good, the bad and the ugly that entails -- or you end up becoming a government censor, which has incredibly scary connotations,” he says. “Likewise, how advertising works on a free tier is vitally important. Ads should not be intrusive or end up degrading the user experience.”

Meinrath says that auctioning off the band could be beneficial if it correlates mainly with providers’ abilities to provide free service, and not simply their ability to pay. Among the criteria he’d like to see included in any potential auction are “free tier service speeds, buildout requirements and wholesale/open access.”

“Opening the band up for auction a la the 700 MHz block is probably the worst idea of the lot,” he says. “Let’s have an auction that actually generates benefits that people will directly experience.”

All contents copyright 1995-2007 Network World, Inc. http://www.networkworld.com

I've been mired in a pitched battle between the public interest (to allow the general public to use unlicensed devices on unused TV frequencies) and the National Association of Broadcasters and various massive corporations (who have launched a FUD campaign of epic proportions here in the nation's capital). Just today I learned that NAB and its allies have taken out full-page adds in various press going out to congressional offices claiming that these technologies will destroy TV as we know it. If this claim sounds familiar, it's because it was the same claim used to fight low power FM radio -- a claim that has since been proven to have been a lie.

Here's the latest:

Today the New America Foundation, Media Access Project and leading spectrum engineers filed Reply Comments at the FCC (Docket 04-186) with further evidence demonstrating the feasibility of "smart radio" technology that allows low-power broadband devices to detect and utilize vacant TV channels without causing harmful interference to TV viewers. The FCC is currently completing a rulemaking that could open unused TV band "white space" for unlicensed access.

Broadcasters and wireless microphone makers, which currently utilize less than half of the frequencies reserved exclusively for their industries, have tried to distort a recent FCC report that tested initial prototype devices submitted by Philips Electronics and Microsoft. Today's filing adds both new measurements and a critique of the broadcaster/microphone lobby claims.

"There is no longer any doubt about the feasibility of mobile, low-power devices to detect-and-avoid channels occupied by licensed TV channels or wireless microphone systems," said Michael Calabrese, director of New America's Wireless Future Program. "The remaining challenge for the FCC is to define explicit operating rules to govern device certification, so that America's high-tech industries can embark on the R&D necessary to bring compliant consumer devices to market."

The Reply Comments include the following major points:

* Measurements at the University of Kansas spectrum labs shows that both DTV channels and low-power broadband devices can operate in three consecutive channels with no harmful interference.

* Since the vast majority of wireless microphones are themselves unlicensed devices - and have been using vacant TV channels illegally, yet without complaints of interference - the FCC should offer them no further protection than NAF et al.'s proposal to allow sports, theater, concert and other venues to bar, or require patrons to turn off, mobile broadband devices during their events.

* Although the FCC labs found that White Space devices can operate as close as 2 meters from a DTV without causing interference, the Commission should follow the approach it has used for personal computers and other unlicensed emissions - and assume that at distances less than 10-to-20 meters, consumers can take self-help to remedy interference from a mobile device.

* The broadcast lobby (MSTV/NAB) submitted interference measurements, concerning the ability of devices to detect weak TV signals, that are clearly unreliable and erroneous.

* The Commission should reject the overly conservative detection threshold for weak TV signals proposed by the high-technology White Spaces Coalition (Microsoft, Philips, Dell, Google, et al.) since prohibiting the access to channels with signals from distant TV markets would protect few viewers, but deprive all Americans of broadband services.

Today's filing builds on NAF et al.'s initial Comments, filed August 15, on the FCC/OET Report.

New America's Wireless Future Program develops and advocates policy proposals aimed at achieving universal and affordable wireless broadband access, expanding public access to the airwaves and updating our nation's communications infrastructure in the digital era. For more information, visit www.spectrumpolicy.org.

Here's a great clip from my good friend Ben Scott, Policy Director of Free Press:

Ben explains in 5 minutes why the AT&T/iPhone exclusive contract is bad for consumers, innovation, and the general public.

A bunch of folks have e-mailed me recently regarding the recent FCC ruling on "Cognitive Radio Technologies and Software Defined Radios". The ruling has been making the rounds and I've just now had a chance to read through the actual FCC document. All in all, this final rule demonstrates a continuing and remarkable ignorance regarding SD and cognitive radio technology and open source development on the part of the FCC.

I first started talking with the FCC regarding these issues a few years back. For those who are just getting their feet wet on this issue, I'd recommend taking a look at my posting from two years back, "The Coming (Cognitive) Radio Revolution... AKA The FCC as Regulatory Ostrich." The issues I discussed in 2005 are eerily prescient of the FCC's recent ruling.

Unfortunately, this most recent FCC statement completely ignores the fundamental issue that SDRs cannot be stopped or controlled at the supplier/manufacturer any more than the FCC can stop file-sharing, P2P networking, or micro-broadcasting. People aren't going to seek FCC licensure for their software patches (such thinking demonstrates an amazing naïveté for the FOSS [Free Open Source Software] arena). In fact, this recent ruling all but guarantees that Open Source software developers will have less interaction with the FCC because the agency is dramatically increasing the "annoyance threshold" for independent developers to work with them. Even more importantly, most of the SDR development that the FCC is asserting control over is going to be happening outside of the US, and thus outside the FCC's jurisdiction in the first place. In other words, this ruling assumes an Amerocentrism to open source development that doesn't even exist.

In 2005 I said I expected widespread availability in 5-10 years. Today we're already beginning to see the first wave of SD and cognitive radio technologies. The price points for hardware are dropping rapidly (in fact, even faster than I'd anticipated), and development and deployment of wireless technologies is accelerating at an incredible pace. The FCC still has an opportunity to set aside wide swaths of spectrum for SDR and cognitive radio use and alleviate this looming crisis. However, their continuing failure to act in any meaningful way and the obvious ignorance that this ruling demonstrates regarding the open source community generally, makes me wonder if they've fallen so far out of touch with realities on the ground that they think they can simply ignore the problem or will it out of existence.

I remember when Harold Feld and I went in and spoke with FCC staff about mesh wireless technology a couple years ago. I'd brought up the issue that mesh networks (and community networks generally) needed to be addressed in their rules and regulations (and in CALEA, in particular). The staff responded by saying that mesh was not really a major concern because it didn't exist yet, and nothing I said seemed to impact that assessment. So the next time we went in, I brought a backpack full of CUWiN equipment and, in 20 minutes, set up a working mesh wireless network inside the FCC building. Only with this technology fully deployed and operational in their own building did they begin to take the issue seriously. Remarkably, CALEA has remained completely unchanged by the on the ground realities of distributed (mesh) broadband networks and today things are quite a mess because of the FCC's refusal to address technological realities.

In the end, the FCC should not be making rulings on issues they clearly do not understand. And the FCC clearly does not understand (as an organization) the realities of SDR and cognitive radio technologies (even though a number of individual staffers clearly do). As spectrum policy and open source software development continue to collide, it would be far wiser for the FCC to initiate dialog with the open source community, come to terms with the technological changes that make current spectrum licensure obsolete, and formulate solutions that parallel the realities of software defined and cognitive radio technologies. I'd like to see the FCC actually address the concerns I and many others have been raising with them for the past several years. Instead they seem to be burying their head even further into the sand.

This posting comes out of months of discussions with telecommunications lawyers and wireless developers, FCC and congressional staff, implementers and integrators, municipal representatives and community organizers -- people with a high degree of experience and expertise in the realm of wireless networking. Part of the reason for the posting stems from a recent resurgence of interest in the M2Z application on several important virtual groups I participate in, part of the reason is that this has been sitting on my to-do list for quite some time, and part is because the M2Z application is both innovative and problematic, which is a rare and intriguing combination.

From M2Z's September 1, 2006 (amended) "Application for License and Authority to Provide National Broadband Radio Service in the 2155-2175 MHz Band":

M2Z Networks, Inc. (“M2Z”) hereby submits its license application to construct and operate a nationwide broadband wireless network in the 2155-2175 MHz spectrum band (the “Application”). Expedited acceptance and grant of the Application will enable M2Z to rapidly make available free, high speed broadband access to nearly every consumer, business and non-profit and public safety entity in the United States without relying on the Universal Service Fund or other taxpayer dollars. Grant of this Application would promote broadband deployment; yield near ubiquitous broadband access within 10 years of license grant and commencement of operations; and serve the public interest, convenience and necessity

...M2Z will transform the broadband marketplace by creating a nationwide, free broadband alternative for most Americans within an exceptionally short time frame. M2Z, therefore, requests that the Commission act expeditiously on the instant Application so that current and would-be consumers of broadband services can benefit from the increased availability and competition that M2Z’s service will bring to the broadband marketplace.

On the face of things, this is a wonderfully exciting development. But delving deeper does raise a number of concerns, not only with the spectrum use proposed, but with the current state of wireless regulation and it's disregard for pending technological innovations that make most spectrum policy obsolete.

Read more...

A coalition of groups filed comments with the FCC in support of the mandating of Digital Television converter box specifications that would open up unused TV bands to unlicensed devices. Without these mandates, manufacturers will refuse to spend the extra few cents it would take (per several hundred dollar device) to filter out of band emissions. Thus severely limiting the reuse of unused frequencies.

As the press release states:

For close to a generation, telecom policy analysts have argued that the TV broadcast band was extremely inefficiently utilized and that parts of it should be reallocated for more efficient uses...the quality of the converter boxes NTIA mandates will affect the utility of the white spaces within TV channels 2-51. The stakes in enabling use of TV band white spaces by unlicensed devices are critical. The desirable propagation characteristics of TV band spectrum make the white spaces ideal for the deployment of high-quality, affordable fixed and mobile wireless broadband services, particularly in rural areas where such services are vitally needed and where the most TV band white space exists. Fostering the deployment of affordable and ubiquitous wireless broadband services will allow more households and businesses to access the Internet, and will carry enormous benefits for small business productivity, as well as for government efficiency, public safety, and education. Opening up more unlicensed spectrum will provide a new hotbed for innovation in wireless services.

You can read about the importance of this little-followed rule-making here, or download the coalition's comments here.