UWB, as authorized by the FCC, operates across 3.1 to 10.6 GHz, with very low power at any one frequency; its tendency to cause or receive interference is very low.

IEEE 802 attempted to create a UWB standard in IEEE 802.15.3a but did not, as neither of two competing proposals reached the necessary voting threshold for approval. One of the competing proposals, Multi-band Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (MB-OFDM), has since seen some consumer success in Wireless USB, which is based on a platform maintained by the WiMedia Alliance; data rates are up to 480 Mbps at a range of about 10 feet.

UWB was eventually standardized in IEEE 802.15.4a, where it exists as an alternative physical-layer to standard IEEE 802.15.4-2006, a standard for very low power, low data rate devices. (The IEEE 802.15.3 family is for higher data rates with higher power consumption.) It uses what was the other competing proposal in 802.15.3a, Direct Sequence UWB (DS-UWB). This standardized form of UWB has been commercialized for asset tracking and other location services, but not yet for consumer applications.

As Lazarus says, though UWB is successful in several applications outside the home, it has not made as much progress in the consumer market. A big reason for this is that UWB’s competitors were not so encumbered with regulatory and standardization delays.

• Standard IEEE 802.11n-2009 (high-throughput Wi-Fi) was approved a year ago with uncoded bit rates up to 600 Mbps in a 40 MHz bandwidth at 2.4 or 5 GHz.

• The Wireless Home Digital Interface (WHDI), which operates in 40 MHz of bandwidth in the 5 GHz unlicensed band, was standardized late last year by the WHDI Consortium. The targeted market is transmission of uncompressed (better-quality) HD video, with data rates up to 3 Gbps. IEEE 802 was not involved, though the technology is similar to 802.11n.

• There are two new millimeter-wave technologies that offer multi-gigabit data rates. These 60-GHz technologies are not direct competitors with UWB, but some overlap in applications could emerge. The data rates are much higher, but 60 GHz is blocked by most any obstruction, and power consumption is high making it unsuitable for mobile devices at this time. As with WHDI, the main market is the transmission of uncompressed HD video.

WirelessHD operates in the 57-64 GHz unlicensed band and is based on the IEEE 802.15.3c-2009 standard that was published about a year ago. The Wireless Gigabit Alliance is another 60 GHz proponent; its specification is to be based on the IEEE 802.11ad standard, which is under development and should be completed around the end of 2012.

If someone tried to standardize UWB in IEEE 802.15.3 today, they would have a better chance of success due to meeting process improvements. In making decisions in IEEE 802, it has traditionally been one-person, one-vote. That has sometimes motivated companies to send as many as possible to the standards meetings so they can earn voting rights and vote as a block, a practice frowned on by ANSI, IEEE 802’s accrediting body. Since the failure of the UWB standardization in 802.15.3, and because of evidence of block voting in other groups, IEEE 802 has modified its voting procedures to make block-voting harder. Everyone participating in the meetings now has to declare an “affiliation,” the definition of which is carefully worded to lead to the primary entity paying the participant. Consultants, for example, have to declare affiliation with their client, not their consulting firm; they often didn’t do this before. If roll-call votes show evidence of block voting, the group may be switched to entity voting (e.g., one company, one vote). That helps. IEEE 802.20 got bogged down, switched to entity voting, instantly made progress and completed its standard.

With these and further process improvements, IEEE 802 is a good home for these unlicensed standards. One advantage is that all IEEE 802 wireless projects are required to address coexistence with other IEEE 802 wireless standards. That’s hard, as many are using the same spectrum, but the affected groups sometimes can make accommodations with each other to reduce mutual interference. Also, many companies prefer the more-open process of an accredited standards development organization. The decision to go it alone or with a proprietary specification, however, is ultimately a business decision.

UWB remains unique in terms of its interference-resistant characteristics. As more RF devices enter the home, as they will with increased machine-to-machine communications, UWB could help as the more-popular relatively-narrowband devices increasingly interfere with each other. UWB may then become successful in the home out of necessity, if not as an option.

Variations of these proposals have been around for decades, formally and informally. Once in a while, progress is made. In 1995, NTIA suggested the changing the 3650-3700 MHz band from federal-only to mixed-use (federal and non-federal). That happened, and in 2005 the FCC adopted rules that resulted in the creation of the IEEE 802.11y standard. (That allows high-powered Wi-Fi equipment to operate on a co-primary basis in the 3650-3700 MHz band in the US, except when near certain satellite earth stations.)

So, it can happen. That, and recent FCC talk of “unleashing” broadband made me think the above recommendations in the FCC’s Plan might get some traction. I’m less sure now after following the latest writings on the topic by spectrum expert Michael Marcus.

In an August 17 post on his blog, Marcus asks why NTIA isn’t measuring occupancy of the almost exclusively-federal 225-400 MHz band. He finds that the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC), NTIA’s advisory committee of federal users, is concerned that measurements in major cities – where spectrum is most needed – will show low occupancy because the band is primarily used by military aircraft. Marcus says enough with these delays; in the new era of cognitive radio and dynamic spectrum access technology, it’s time to see some hard spectrum data so sharing options can be examined.

If you’re intrigued by that, there’s more. An August 9 post says an NTIA spectrum advisory committee “evades some major issues and pushes the parochial agendas of some committee members without trying to relate them to the broader public interests.” A May 10 post takes you inside that committee’s meeting, and observes a general effort to protect incumbent spectrum users.

It can happen, but these reports suggest the timetable will be later rather than sooner.

• AAI/Textron Systems Corporation filed an application (with supporting exhibits) for experimental license. The company wants to test its Shadow 200, Aerosonde, Orbiter and other unmanned aircraft systems. This is related to work for the United States Marine Corp. Operation is to be on 310-390 MHz, 902-928 MHz, 1090 MHz, 1350-1390 MHz, 1700-1859 MHz, and 4400-4999 MHz. Transmitting equipment is manufactured by Microhard Systems Corporation, Free Wave Technologies, Advanced Microwave Products, Global Microwave Systems, and Microair Avionics.

FCC staff has asked for several items of information before approving the application. The FAA operates in the frequency bands 328.6-335.4 MHz, 1090 MHz, and 1215-1390 MHz; FCC staff asks for coordination of these bands with the FAA Regional Office. In addition, the frequency bands 225-328.6 MHz and 335.4-399.9 MHz are used for military purposes, and the applicant was asked to coordinate with NTIA’s Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC).

• AAI/Textron Systems Corporation also filed an application (with supporting exhibits) for special temporary authority to operate on 420-450 MHz and 2000-2400 MHz for a government project apparently involving the Orbiter miniature unmanned aircraft system. There is not much information about the proposed operation, and FCC staff has asked for more details.

In correspondence to the applicant, FCC staff notes that the “Aerospace & Flight Test Radio Coordinating Council (AFTRCC) oversees the frequency bands; 1435-1525 MHz, 2310-2320 MHz, and 2345-2390 MHz. These frequency bands need to be removed or need to be prior coordinated.”

• Sportvision filed an application (with supporting exhibits) for special temporary authority for testing of an automobile race track wireless data system that is to provide data communications between vehicles in a race track and one or more fixed base stations installed along a track. Operation is to be on 2395-2400 MHz.

One application seen for this system is video image enhancement for television broadcasting of automobile racing events. The would allow television viewers to see, displayed on screen, the real-time location of cars during a racing event.

The vehicles would be equipped with GPS receivers and other sensors that generate a data packet every 200 milliseconds. The wireless system would collect those packets and deliver them to a control station in real time. “The radio itself is a direct sequence spread spectrum unit, using production radios for 2.4 GHz. The system may ultimately be deployed on an unlicensed basis in the 2.4 GHz band or elsewhere, but the high noise levels in that band in the test locations (commercial automobile race tracks) are unsuitable for development and testing of the product.”

“An Intersil baseband processor performs the Direct Sequence modulation and demodulation. It is part of a five-chipset developed for the 802.11b standard. It uses 1/4th of the standard 802.11 speed resulting in a narrow occupied RF bandwidth.”

The frequency band requested is allocated on a primary basis to the Amateur Radio Service, and coordination is to be performed with the ARRL. This application was granted on June 4.

• Motorola filed an application (with supporting exhibit (as amended)) for special temporary authority to “test, evaluate and demonstrate a prototype radio communications system designed to support the internal communications requirements, including public safety-related communications, of an electric power generation and transmission cooperative in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.”

According to Motorola, “[o]peration under this experimental STA will be conducted on a non-interference basis on a limited number of 12.5 kHz channel pairs in the 151.4725-154.5675 MHz band and the 157.1875-162.9625 MHz band.”

• Raytheon Network Centric Systems filed an application (with supporting exhibits) for experimental license. Raytheon says it is working to build a “NetWarrior Communications System” using GSM technology. The primary use for this experimental license would be to test and evaluate this system while in development and conduct demonstrations for military and government officials.

The system is called GSMnet and is described as a unique communication solution that provides the ability to create a self-contained, privately managed mobile network based on GSM cellular standards. The enabling technology of GSMnet is said to allow military personnel to manage mobile phone access on the GSMnet communications infrastructure, delivering seamless cellular communications coverage to deployed military personnel and critical incident responders in remote or hazardous environments or when conditions have rendered existing GSM cellular networks inaccessible.

Operation is to be on 1922.6, 1927.4, 2112.6, and 2117.4 MHz. This application was granted on June 15.

• Sierra Nevada Corporation filed an application for special temporary authority to conduct flight testing of X-NET Air WiMax transceiver radio devices. The flight tests will determine the range of the data communications that can be achieved and the data throughput that can be achieved at different ranges.

As background, the C4N (Command, Control, Computers, Communications, and Networks) Division of the Sierra Nevada Corporation has developed an air-ground data communications link under contract with the USAF Rivet Joint aircraft operations as a part of the Big Safari Program. The Sierra Nevada equipment is called the X-NET Air System. It is a dual channel FDD radio link. Operation is to be on 2675 and 2685 MHz. This application was granted on June 28.

• Raysat Antenna Systems filed an application (with supporting exhibits) for special temporary authority to operate up to five Land Mobile-Satellite Service (LMSS) earth stations with the AMC-5 and AMC-6 satellites at 79° W.L. and 72° W.L., respectively. The company seeks to test and demonstrate the new SR70 earth terminal, a single-panel, Ku-band array antenna in connection with Department of Defense/Logistics Innovation Agency (DOD/LIA). Operation is requested at 14.0-14.5 MHz.

“The SR-70 antenna technology builds upon RAS’s proven antenna technology for mobile applications. The major enhancement is in the antenna panel which is capable of simultaneous Ku-band transmission and reception within the 14.0-14.5 GHz and 11.7- 12.7 GHz bands, respectively. The antenna allows tracking in three axes, azimuth, elevation and polarization.”

“The antenna consists of a single 6 inch by 6 inch panel array which is mounted on a rotatable platform. The platform rotates in azimuth to orient the panel towards the satellite. The panel also tilts to set the elevation angle. Finally, the antenna has a polarization control mechanism which sets the correct polarization angle for both transmit and receive.”

“During operation, the antenna uses a built-in GPS receiver to determine its position on the earth. It then uses the geographical position and the longitudinal position of the satellite to determine the appropriate elevation angle. Once the elevation angle is set, the antenna rotates in azimuth. During the scanning process the antenna receives Eb/No information from the modem to verify that the target satellite has been acquired. Once the satellite is acquired, the antenna dithers in both azimuth and elevation by ±2.0° to maintain peaking on the satellite and the transmission is enabled. The antenna also has internal 3-axis gyroscopes and 2-axis inclinometers to help with the tracking while the antenna is in motion.”

This application was granted on June 16.

• Lockheed Martin filed an application (with supporting exhibits) to experiment with a swept-frequency radar system operating at various frequencies between 1.0 and 15.4 GHz. The radar transmit-and-receive system will be coherently frequency step-chirped from the start frequency to the final frequency, with a pulse width of 95 ns. Other details are said to be classified; Lockheed Martin has requested confidential treatment of this application, and FCC staff has responded to the company asking for justification.

• Aircell, a provider of Wi-Fi service aboard aircraft (under the GoGo brand) filed an application (with supporting exhibits) for experimental license to conduct FAA-required tests to determine the susceptibility of aircraft avionics to interference from radio frequency emissions from consumer devices operating in Wi-Fi bands. Aircell says it must demonstrate conformance to those standards to receive FAA Supplemental Type Certificates necessary for the deployment of its service aboard commercial airliners. Testing is to be on 2400.0-2483.5 MHz, 5250-5350 MHz, and 5725-5825 MHz.

Aircell says that “[p]ursuant to Documents DO-294B and DO-160 of the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RCTA), and the FAA, standards for testing the susceptibility of avionics to interference have been set. To comply with these standards, tests within an aircraft must radiate at the legal maximum power authorized for the radiating device, plus the link budget of the highest gain antenna permitted, times the number of simultaneous radiating devices. For the purpose of Aircell’s tests, the math computes a 1 watt signal into a 6 db gain antenna times three wireless access points (WAP). That comes to 30 dBm + 6 dB = 4 watts X 3 WAPs = 12 watts. Since the 12 watt signal exceeds the allowed limits for unlicensed devices, an Experimental License is required.”

• Clearwire Spectrum Holdings III filed an application (with supporting exhibits) for experimental license to test WiMAX IEEE 802.16m technology in the Phoenix, Arizona market. (The 802.16m standard is now being finalized in IEEE 802.) Clearwire says it is evaluating 802.16m and other 4G technologies “as a potential technology evolutionary strategy.” Clearwire is planning to test overlay 802.16e WiMAX using 10 MHz channels, Frequency Division Duplex (FDD) using 20 MHz channels, and Time Division Duplex (TDD) using 20 MHz channels. Operation is to be on 2496-2690 MHz.

Equipment from “many vendors” will be evaluated. Many tests are to be performed, including those for end-to-end system performance, mobility management, MIMO, scheduler and QoS, base-station RF characteristics, self-organizing networks, and VoIP. This application was granted on June 29.

• Flight Research, Inc. filed an application (with supporting exhibit) for experimental license to operate on 2.4 GHz to send NTSC video from a small aircraft to ground. A Strain Security transmitter is to be installed in a Cessna 150 aircraft operating as a surrogate UAV. (SUAV). The SUAV is to fly locally as an academic exercise for students in a UAV flight test short course that is part of the National Test Pilot School. Students will execute tests in remotely-piloted and command-directed modes from a ground control element, collecting data employing typical flight test techniques and evaluating the system. Part of that training involves sending video from the aircraft to the ground. (Much of this information was not in the original application but was supplied by e-mail to FCC staff later.)

• Global Technical Systems filed an application (with supporting exhibits) for special temporary authority to test an aircraft-mounted ground-penetrating radar. In the test, a metal target will be buried 6 feet underground and illuminated by the radar for 60 seconds on each pass of the aircraft, which will be flying at 10,000 feet above ground. Data will be collected for ground processing.

Correspondence between the applicant and FCC staff reveals some confusion as to the frequency of operation. It seems it will be in the 1250-1400 MHz range.

• InterDigital filed an application (with supporting exhibits) for experimental license to conduct research using vacant spectrum in the television broadcast bands (the “white spaces”) for indoor testing of fixed and portable white-space devices. InterDigital says its “goal is to develop technology and enable products for efficient use of bandwidth by combining the advantages of multiple radio access technologies and frequency bands.” “InterDigital plans to test technology that provides cost effective options for wireless distribution of various data types including, for example, broadband content (video) and machine-to-machine packets.” “Another goal of the experimentation is to develop and validate cognitive radio technology.”

In correspondence to the applicant, FCC staff asks for details on how InterDigital plans to prevent interference to TV licensees. The links above are for an application for operation in Melville, New York. An essentially-identical application was also filed for operation in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

• Panasonic Avionics Corporation filed an application (with supporting exhibit) for experimental license for ground and flight testing of up to twenty aircraft earth stations (AESs) of two AES types – ten MELCO reflector terminals and ten Aura LE terminals – to further test and demonstrate the functionality of its eXConnect Ku-band Aeronautical Mobile-Satellite Service (“AMSS”) system. The company says eXConnect is to provide broadband internet access, real-time video content, voice and other services aboard commercial aircraft.

The company does not envision formal launch of the eXConnect system onboard U.S. commercial airlines in the near term. It is, however, preparing an FCC blanket license application for authority to operate eXConnect AESs on a full commercial basis. In the meantime, the company wants to conduct limited market studies. Operation is to be on 14.000-14.470 GHz.

• Virginia Tech Mobile and Portable Radio Research Group (MPRG) filed an application (with supporting exhibits) for special temporary authority to perform experiments related to new TV band (white space) devices.

The Group intends to test prototype TV white space devices to determine how their operation will affect other co-channel and adjacent-channel users, such as wireless microphones and other professional audio equipment that is commonly operated in the television bands. Frequencies will be coordinated prior to operation by the local SBE frequency coordinator. Operation is to be on 512-608 MHz and 614-698 MHz.

• Lockheed Martin filed an application (with supporting exhibits) for special temporary authority to test a Harris model RF-7800S-TR radio as a potential weapon data link to provide in-flight moving target location updates to a weapon to facilitate engaging moving surface targets. The objective of the test is to evaluate the affects of message rate, latency and bit-error-rate on target engagement and determine a realistic target engagement envelope. A larger goal is to demonstrate this class of radio as a viable option to improving moving target strike effectiveness and support the development of low cost, low collateral damage weapons. Operation will be on 350-450 MHz.

• GlySens Incorporated filed an application (with supporting exhibits) for experimental license to test implantable electronic medical devices on 433.92 MHz. The company has requested confidential processing of its application, so few other details are publicly available from the FCC. This application was granted on June 28.

This is likely related to the company’s announced development of a long-term continuous glucose monitoring system that is designed to provide an unobtrusive means to continuously track glucose levels in people with diabetes. The system is has two parts: a long-lived fully-implanted sensor and an external monitor with a display. The sensor continuously monitors glucose levels in subcutaneous tissue, which are correlated to blood glucose levels. The sensor transmits the glucose measurements wirelessly to the  external display device. This device indicates the current blood glucose level, shows a historical chart of the previous blood glucose values, provides adjustable automatic warnings of high and low blood glucose readings, and stores information for analysis.

• Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) filed an application for special temporary authority to use telemetry, ranging, and video transmitters for the second launch campaign of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle. The vehicle will be launched for NASA from Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, under launch authorities granted by the U.S. Air Force and Federal Aviation Administration. SpaceX is under an active STA for this, but due to delays the STA will expire before launch. This application is to continue that authority, as the FCC does not grant extensions for experimental STAs.

SpaceX will utilize a telemetry and video transmitter on both the first and second stages of the vehicle, plus a C-band ranging transmitter on the vehicles second stage. The first stage will begin transmitting 15 minutes prior to launch and remain active for 2.9 minutes after launch. The second stage will continue transmitting for up to 2 hours after launch. Operation will be on 2213.5, 2221.5, 2251.5, 2273.5, and 5765.0 MHz.

In correspondence to the applicant, FCC staff says that the applicant will have to obtain an orbital debris statement from Space Exploration Technologies, Inc., in accordance with 47 CFR, Part 5.63(e) which states, in part, that “Applicants for an experimental authorization involving a satellite system must submit a description of the design and operational strategies the satellite system will use to mitigate orbital debris.”)

• Professor David Miller from MIT filed an application (with supporting exhibits) for experimental license to transmit spacecraft telemetry on 2.4000-2.4836 GHz. This is in support of testing of the CASTOR (Cathode/Anode Satellite Thruster for Orbital Repositioning) satellite. Testing is to validate the performance and application of Diverging Cusped Field Thruster (DCFT) technology. This will be achieved by taking on-orbit state data to compare the degradation experienced by the DCFT to that of similar technologies such as Hall thrusters.

• RLM Communications filed an application (with supporting exhibits) for experimental license. Operation is to be on various broadcast bands from 540 kHz to 806 MHz. The company says it is “providing the United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) research and development support in the areas of Joint Integration and Compatibility Development System (JCIDS) and Special Operations Forces Integration Development System (SOFCIDS) requirements development, product evaluation and systems testing and training. RLM will be providing training documentation, technical writers, training specialists, electronic technicians and other media support professionals in the upcoming Design Testing (DT), Operational Testing (OT) and new equipment training (NET) for a family of electronic broadcast systems which encompass broadcast radio in AM, FM, SW and television in UHF and VHF analog television and digital television. The nature of the activity will include erecting the antenna system several times, startup up the transmitter and increasing ERP into a dummy load and into the radiating” antennas.

As background, the National Broadband Plan recommends repurposing 120 MHz of from the TV bands to mobile broadband. On June 14 the FCC released an Omnibus Broadband Team Technical Paper that describes some of the analyses supporting this repurposing. Chairman Genachowski asked the Commission staff to hold the Forum to consider ideas in the Paper.

At this Forum there were four areas discussed:

• Advancements in Compression Technology
• Cellularization of Broadcast Architecture
• Improvements in VHF Reception
• Methodologies for Repacking the TV Band

Each area had been the subject of discussion by groups in workshops earlier in the day. At the Forum each of the four groups reported  preliminary findings and recommendations.

After hearing the Forum, which is a preliminary effort, I”d say its gist is that technical changes in the TV industry aren’t going to free up significant TV spectrum for mobile broadband.  There are no advancements in compression technology that can be implemented in a timely manner (i.e., less than 13 years). State-of-the-art in compression technology, and market realities, makes channel sharing by different licensees impractical. Cellularization of broadcast architecture is seen as not practical nor economical. There is room for improvement in VHF reception, perhaps through higher transmit power levels and better, smart receive antennas. An examination of methodologies for repacking the TV band shows no scenarios where stations can avoid sharing channels, unless some stations voluntarily go off-the-air. (And, as we heard in the presentation on compression, sharing is seen as impractical.)

The slides used in each of the four sessions are to be made available on the FCC web site. For those interested in more details now, I share my notes below.

Advancements in Compression Technology

The results of this group were presented by Andrew Setos from the Fox group.

MPEG-2 was published in 1994, and no significant improvements are expected.

Compression equipment has improved such that artifacts are less noticeable, but they are still there. For example, where five years ago there might have been an obvious pixilation, now there is more of a blurring effect.

There are more-modern compression technologies such as MPEG 4. Current TVs do not support MPEG-4, and it could take 13 years to migrate that technology to consumer TVs.

The FCC Technical Paper scenario of multiplexing two HD programs for two different licensees in one 6 MHz channel is not viable due to quality degradation that would result when needing to choose a winner and loser when one HD stream exceeds the bandwidth of the other.

Statistical multiplexing efficiencies are lost with two separate licensees. It can work with the same licensee because the licensee knows what is in the different programs.

As far as pairing an HD station and an SD station in one 6 MHz channel, this is not viable as the trend is toward all HD.

The bit allocation for Mobile DTV is a straight carve-out, and statistical multiplexing does not help.

Cellularization of Broadcast Architecture

Bob Seidel of CBS presented the results of the cellularization group.

A Single Frequency Network (SFN) is much easier with OFDM than with the current 8-VSB modulation method.

“Self-jamming,” or interference between two cells in a SFN, was raised as an undesirable artifact of SFNs that would result in lack of coverage between cells.

SFNs will not help improve reception at the edge of coverage areas because of desired/undesired signal ratios that must be maintained there.

The lack of performance requirements for DTV equalizers is an issue.

Practical issues involved in implementing SFNs include feeding programming to multiple sites, and the cost of building and maintaining multiple sites.

It was suggested that, regarding Mobile DTV, wireless broadband providers should work with broadcasters. The point here is, why broadcast, say, the Super Bowl from hundreds of cell sites when Mobile DTV from one broadcast site will suffice.

Little or no UHF TV spectrum can be repurposed from cellularization.

Improvements in VHF Reception

Kerry Kozad from Dielectric Communications reported on the VHF reception panel.

The group was focused on fixed reception; mobile operation on VHF is not contemplated due to the large mobile antennas that would be required.

The low-VHF band (channels 2-6) is a bigger problem than the high VHF band (channels 7-13). Noise is a bigger problem, for one thing.

There are only 39 stations in the low-VHF band.

Noise varies from location-to-location at low-VHF, making it difficult to have consistent  performance and use common planning factors. There are also undesirable propagation effects at the low VHF band. It would likely require an impractical 15 to 20 dB power increase to alleviate these problems.

High-band VHF suffers from the same noise problems, but not as much. A 10 dB power increase would be required to help significantly.

Receiver antennas can be improved, but not much. The best candidate for improved antenna performance is indoor reception, perhaps through smart antennas working in conjunction with the TV set. The TV and antenna manufacturers have to work together for this to happen.

The FCC should not set consumer antenna performance standards. There are too many variables for a one-size-fits-all performance standard.

It would help to standardize descriptive terminology and performance measurement standards.

The FCC should increase maximum power limits, but be aware that there can be more interference with higher power.

Methodologies for Repacking the TV Band

The spectrum repacking session was led by Bruce Franca from MSTV.

He summarized the status of new modeling efforts and reviewed Technical Paper study assumptions.

Population loss (loss of people served) is one of the costs in reclaiming spectrum.

The focus is on reclamation in the UHF band, as mobile broadband operators are not interested in VHF spectrum.

The study assumptions included locating all stations in channels 2-30, and adding no new stations to channels 2-6.

The minimum number of stations that must share in this scenario are 248. From 20 to 40 percent of Designated Market Areas (DMAs) are impacted and must share, depending on border protection.

A more careful approach to DTV interference is suggested. In analog television, interference can be increased 8 dB before someone notices, and can increase 20-30 dB  before someone stops watching. In DTV, however, most TV sets go from perfect picture to no picture in 1 dB.

Interference performance is governed mostly by DTV receive performance.

Different propagation models are available, but there is no indication any are generally better than the Longley-Rice model.

One question was whether protected service areas should be adjusted to more accurately reflect viewing practices, and if so, how. Nielsen reports 10.9 million over-the-air homes, but it is not clear what that means. For example, a home with both FIOS and over-the-air reception is not considered over-the-air by Nielsen.

Hispanic households have a high percentage of over-the-air reception: 20% in Los Angeles, 35% in Houston, and 28% in Phoenix.

50 million DTV converter boxes were sold.

In discussion, it was noted that this panel’s results refer to sharing being “required.” That assumes no stations voluntarily choose to go off the air. If sufficient stations choose to go off, sharing is not required.

A marketplace update provided facts about the Latin American market. At the end of 2009, Latin America had 509 million wireless users. Average ARPU is US $14. Data as a percentage of service revenues in Q3 2009 is 17% compared to 28% in the US. In December 2009, GSM-UMTS-HSPA had a 91% market share, up from 88% in December 2008.

A 3GPP Technology Standards Roadmap provided an overview of 3GPP and key 3GPP issues. It is a good snapshot of where 3GPP stands today.

Operators Vivo, Claro, and NTT DOCOMO presented their strategies for mobile broadband. The Vivo presentation is more market-oriented and is written in Portuguese. The Vivo and NTT DOCOMO presentations include more technical content. Vivo seems concerned about the backhaul-capacity issue.

Ericsson Brazil discussed HSPA evolution in terms of bit rate, latency, MIMO, and multicarrier; related RAN backhaul improvements were also addressed.

Deployment of mobile broadband was addressed. Nokia Siemens Networks discussed migrating from HSPA to HSPA+ and LTE, and noted it has 11 commercial LTE deals, six of which have been announced. Huawei discussed some of its products.

A presentation on spectrum policy by 3G Americas identified some Latin America issues. There is no spectrum for advanced mobile broadband services. Governments are promoting new entrants by using spectrum caps. There are high taxes for wireless services and equipment. Likely bands for 4G will be 2.5 GHz, 1.7/2.1 GHz and 700 MHz.

An analysis by 3G Americas shows that spectrum aggregation limits impose serious costs on existing providers, which are paid by consumers. In markets with constrained providers, consumers may pay twice as much for LTE if spectrum is limited to only 2×5 MHz as compared to 2×10 MHz, and four times as much as compared to 2×20 MHz.

On December 2, 2009, the FCC issued a Public Notice asking for more comment on spectrum licensed to broadcast TV stations, and on market-based mechanisms that would encourage broadcasters to make spectrum available for wireless.

TV broadcasters generally like their spectrum as it is. They argue that over-the-air TV is a public service. It is the only source of video programming for some. A large investment was made in the recent DTV transition. They are working on advanced technologies including Mobile DTV and other content delivery platforms. Multicasting provides greater choice in programming without the need to subscribe to a cable or satellite service.

Some broadcasters question the notion of a spectrum shortage for wireless broadband. MSTV and NAB, in a proposed framework accompanying their comments, find fault in analyses showing a need of hundreds of additional megahertz. Technologies such as femtocells, they say, can increase wireless system capacity. To the extent that more spectrum is needed, they want the FCC to conduct a comprehensive inventory of all spectrum users.

Several lesser-known companies propose new technologies for broadcasters. Adaptrum, a startup developing cognitive radio technology for white space, proposes allowing TV stations to deploy broadband services within their coverage contours. CTB proposes a distributed, cellular architecture for broadcasters that would allow them to provide both broadcast and two-way broadband services. Sezmi has a system in which popular video programming is delivered via broadcast, and the remaining programming is delivered via broadband.

Many wireless proponents acknowledge broadcasters’ public service but encourage the FCC to look at repacking the spectrum such that wireless services get more spectrum while broadcasters’ audiences continue to be served. Motorola, CTIA, and CEA suggest distributed antenna systems, also known as Single Frequency Networks (SFNs). Multiple antennas transmitting at lower power would reduce interference, reduce the frequency separation required between stations, and allow TV stations to be repacked into a smaller portion of the spectrum. CTIA and CEA estimate that 100-180 MHz of spectrum might be made available for mobile broadband. An advantage of this approach is that today’s TVs are not made obsolete, and the current 19.4 Mbps digital data stream is still available to stations. Presumably, those benefiting from this new scheme would help pay the broadcaster’s transition costs.

Professor and former FCC Chief Economist Thomas Hazlett draws on his previous writings to propose an overlay auction of the TV band. In his plan, the 294 MHz DTV band is divided into seven national overlay licenses, each 42 MHz wide. These licenses are sold at auction. Those auction winners have exclusive, flexible-use rights. Existing TV stations are grandfathered and protected. The overlay licensee, however, can negotiate with the TV station and pay it to modify its operation or even agree to go off the air. It is estimated that the broadcaster’s use of spectrum is worth two or three orders of magnitude less than the same spectrum deployed for more-flexible wireless purposes.

The emerging white-space ecosystem is at risk in some of these plans. Any scheme that repacks the broadcast spectrum more efficiently, such as SFN, reduces white space. Google, Dell, and Microsoft – all supporters of unlicensed white-space services – are concerned about this.

Several dozen sets of comments were received in response to the December 2 Notice. It is likely the FCC will not decide all these issues related to TV spectrum by its February 17 deadline, and will them further, perhaps in a rulemaking proceeding.