Wireless Future Blog

California Public Utilities Commission approves $5M grant for fiber network

MuniWireless.com — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0500

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has approved a $5 million grant from the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) to the Central Coast Broadband Consortium (CCBC). The grant pays for 10% of the cost of a $50 million fiber optic trunk line network planned for Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Benito counties on California’s central coast (for more details, click here).

According to Steve Blum of Tellus Venture Associates, the project will build “a 428-mile fiber optic backbone linking unserved and underserved areas to better served communities, and connecting the entire region to Tier 1 Internet facilities in Silicon Valley. Using a loop architecture, any point on the network would have two independent paths to any other point, and to the Internet. Current plans are for the system to be operated by a cooperative, which will offer access on a wholesale basis to last-mile Internet service providers and major institutional customers.”

* * * * * * * * * *

Special offer: Get free Telecom and Wireless magazines.

* * * * * * * * *

Buy these Research Reports now:

(1) Guide to the WiMAX Band (2.5 GHz): the technology, license holders and future prospects

(2) The U.S. Mobile Web Market: Taking Advantage of the iPhone Phenomenon

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Altoona, Pennsylvania deploys municipal wireless network

MuniWireless.com — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0500

Altoona, Pennsylvania (10 square mi., 25 square km; pop. 50,000) has deployed a municipal wireless broadband network that combines Wi-Fi (using 2.4 GHz) and licensed wireless (4.9 GHz) for public safety use. The network was deployed by BIG Wireless, a systems integrator based in York, Pennsylvania.

The network will be used initially by the Altoona police and fire departments. Altoona police will connect to the Pennsylvania Justice Network (JNET), Informant reporting software, field reporting and mapping applications. The fire department will use it to access reporting software, building plans, property and mapping systems, as well as Hazmat systems, with future plans for rip-and-run and mobile inspection applications.

Later, the town will allow code enforcement officers to look up permit applications, property and mapping systems while bridge inspectors will have access to the statewide reporting system. Altoona’s Water Authority will also have access to internal mapping and water/sewer line databases when out in the field.

Altoona’s municipal wireless broadband network uses Motorola MWAN 4300 Series access points which have a a two-radio configuration: a 2.4 GHz WiFi radio (802.11 b/g) and an additional 4.9 GHz licensed band radio for public safety.

* * * * * * * * * *

Special offer: Get free Telecom and Wireless magazines.

* * * * * * * * *

Buy these Research Reports now:

(1) Guide to the WiMAX Band (2.5 GHz): the technology, license holders and future prospects

(2) The U.S. Mobile Web Market: Taking Advantage of the iPhone Phenomenon

* * * * * * * * * * * *

PK Testifies at New York City Council Net Neutrality Hearing

publicknowledge.org — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0500

See video Click thumbnail above for video

Last week, the New York City Council Committee on Technology in Government convened a hearing to discuss a proposed Net Neutrality resolution. Our own Art Brodsky testified alongside other Net Neutrality advocates, showing support for strong Net Neutrality regulations that would preserve the web's nondiscriminatory nature. If you want to skip ahead, Art's statement begins just after the 30 minute mark.

Word of Advice To AT&T: If You're The Only One Ranting, You Look Awkward.

publicknowledge.org — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0500

As noted by Washington Post’s Cecilia Kang, AT&T has been in again to beat up on Google Voice. What I found interesting was the ex parte notice filed by AT&T after the fact (copy here). While it has the Net Neutrality Docket Nos on it, it does not have the docket numbers for the actual proceeding on call blocking (07-135 for them what care).

Perhaps AT&T accepts Google’s explanation that Google Voice is an information service? Since the FCC has asked whether to apply its proposed network neutrality rules to information services other than broadband access, it would still be relevant in this docket.

Ofcom on TV White Space

spectrumtalk.blogspot.com — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0500

Ofcom on
TV White Space

As many readers know, Ofcom is the FCC's UK counterpart, with roughly comparable jurisdiction. It is much less politicized than FCC is and is run by what we would call a "single administrator" like EPA. As opposed to FCC where virtually all decisions have be be voted on by 5 political appointees,
"(Ofcom) is based upon a model which is familiar to the commercial sector but which marks a departure from the past.
Ofcom has a Board with a Chairman and both executive and non-executive members. The Executive runs the organisation and answers to the Board, whilst the work of both Board and Executive is informed by the contribution of a number of advisory bodies."
(As I have pointed out in my reply comments to Docket 09-157, FCC - without additional legislation - could move to this model for noncontroversial spectrum matters and probably increase its productivity significantly - but I digress.)

On November 17, Ofcom issued a "discussion document" entitled "Digital Dividend: Geolocation for Cognitive Access A discussion on using geolocation to enable licence- exempt access to the interleaved spectrum". After you translate the UK-jargon (Why can't they learn to speak English like us?) it turns out that this is basically the same issue in Docket 04-186, "TV whitespaces". Like the original FCC NPRM, Ofcom is thinking about white space devices using either geosensing or LBT (listen-before-talk) technology. FCC in its November 4, 2008 2nd R&O selected the "belt and suspenders"
approach of requiring both geosensing and LBT - further compounding the situation by basing the geosensing on a 1966 propagation model that FCC itself had already discredited for all but its original context of TV allotments.

In Ofcom's geosensing proposal they state
"Over many years broadcasters have carefully predicted the signal levels that will be received from their transmitter networks and have refined and validated these predictions. This information is held by Arqiva, which conducts the modelling on behalf of the broadcasters. There should be little difficulty in providing such signal strength information to the database. This implies that the database will not need to perform propagation modelling on behalf of DTT (digital terrestrial television - not necessarily HDTV)."
(Arqiva is the private entity in the UK that provides the TV transmitters for ITV, Channel 4, S4C and Five. UK private broadcasters generate content, they do not have the equivalent of Part 73 licenses as US broadcasters do. DTV/DTTV signals for private broadcasters are multiplexed together and transmitted from common transmitters and towers on common frequencies.)
Thus the assumed coverage of TV stations under the Ofcom proposal will be based on "validated predictions" of coverage accumulated over many years. So what does FCC require? Check out the new §15.512(a):
"TVBDs must protect digital and analog TV services within the contours shown in the following table. The contours are based on the R–6602 curves contained in §73.699" of this chapter.

These R-6602 curves were developed in the pre-desktop computer age of 1966 as a convenient way of calculating nominal coverage of TV stations, using 8 radials to consider terrain. The primitive algorithm can be seen in Figures 4 and 5 of §73.333 . (On these 8 radials only the difference between the 90 percentile altitude and the 10 percentile altitude is considered and even this is done on a rough grid appropriate for the manual calculation of the 1960s.) Note that due to the wording of §15.512(a) it is not clear if the limited terrain corrections of Figues 4 and 5 are even to be used! That is because the details for using even these primitive correction factors are in §73.684 which is never cited or incorporated by reference. FCC has warned about the limitations of this technique even when the correction factors are applied:
"Under actual conditions, the true coverage may vary from these estimates because the terrain over any specific path is expected to be different from the average terrain on which the field strength charts were based. Further, the actual extent of service will usually be less than indicated by these estimates due to interference from other stations. Because of these factors, the predicted field strength contours give no assurance of service to any specific percentage of receiver locations within the distances indicated.”
So why is the UK proposing a realistic propagation-based geosensing and FCC is using "belt and suspenders" with unrealistic propagation which overprotects the few people who actually use antennas for TV reception?

The app I am waiting for: Worksnug

MuniWireless.com — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0500

Worksnug is an iPhone application that uses “augmented reality” to help you find the best place in a city to sit and do your work — i.e. a cafe with Wi-Fi, co-working spaces, and more. You use your iPhone to scan the surroundings and Worksnug superimposes comments on the screen telling you if the Wi-Fi works well, whether a cafe has a warm and welcoming atmosphere, etc. It is available for London and company’s website says it will soon be in Berlin, Madrid, San Francisco, New York and other cities. Here’s an article in the Guardian about Worksnug.

* * * * * * * * * *

Special offer: Get free Telecom and Wireless magazines.

* * * * * * * * *

Buy these Research Reports now:

(1) Guide to the WiMAX Band (2.5 GHz): the technology, license holders and future prospects

(2) The U.S. Mobile Web Market: Taking Advantage of the iPhone Phenomenon

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Another Pro-ACTA Letter from MPAA, RIAA, et al.

publicknowledge.org — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0500

A number of movie studios, record labels, and other copyright-holding companies (and their related trade associations) have also written a pro-ACTA letter to Congress, which I first saw posted on Ben Sheffner’s blog. Minus the bizarre “distraction” claim, it follows the same basic pattern—that ACTA will benefit IP businesses and do nothing harmful.

The evidence for this? Still absent. Instead, the letter reiterates that changes in technology require online copyright enforcement, and thus a section of ACTA covering the Internet.

This probably shouldn’t require repeating, but I’ll say it again. A solution has to be tailored to solve the problem. Is ACTA properly tailored to solve copyright infringement? No one can tell.

Hollywood: Never Mind the Transparency, Here's the ACTA

publicknowledge.org — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0500

It’s not a surprise that the Motion Picture Association of America is a supporter of the so-called Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a proposed international copyright and trademark agreement that the public isn’t allowed to see. What is surprising is how willing the MPAA is to dismiss calls for an open and democratic process as a “distraction.”

In a letter addressed yesterday to Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the MPAA endorsed ACTA and then went on to say this:

Outcries on the lack of transparency in the ACTA negotiations are a distraction. They distract from the substance and the ambition of the ACTA

This is a pathetic excuse for logic.

The Economist on Swindon’s muni Wi-Fi plans

MuniWireless.com — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0500

Swindon (UK) is getting a municipal Wi-Fi network, thanks to a joint venture with a local firm. News reports say that the network will cost £1 million and require 1400 access points, but details are sketchy and there is skepticism about the ability of Swindon and the service provider to pull this off.

Despite that, The Economist felt compelled to weigh in with its own opinion about muni wireless:

Unlike many of the American municipal Wi-Fi schemes, which aim to bring the internet to the unwired poor, this one is explicitly commercial. The project is a joint venture called Digital City UK, split between the council, Rikki Hunt, a local businessman, and aQovia, a technology firm. Free access will be restricted to a few hours a day. Those wanting more can pay for an unlimited service that will be faster than that offered by mobile-phone companies. Mr Hunt reckons that bits of local government, such as the police force and the local NHS, will want to use the network, giving it a ready-made customer base.

* * * * * * * * * *

Special offer: Get free Telecom and Wireless magazines.

* * * * * * * * *

Buy these Research Reports now:

(1) Guide to the WiMAX Band (2.5 GHz): the technology, license holders and future prospects

(2) The U.S. Mobile Web Market: Taking Advantage of the iPhone Phenomenon

* * * * * * * * * * * *

The Progress & Freedom Foundation Presents Let's Make a Deal: Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, and a Market in Spectrum

spectrumtalk.blogspot.com — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0500

The Progress & Freedom Foundation
Presents

Let's Make a Deal: Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, and a Market in Spectrum

Proposals to have television broadcasters return a portion of their spectrum for re-allocation and auction for next-generation mobile broadband and data services have been met with strong reactions from broadcasters. Is re-allocation of spectrum necessary to encourage broadband expansion? Would compensation for broadcasters be adequate? Will Congress go along with such a deal, or would it be blocked as contrary to "the public interest?" These and other policy issues will be discussed at " Let's Make a Deal: Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, and a Market in Spectrum ," a Congressional Seminar hosted by The Progress & Freedom Foundation.

Speakers include FCC's Blair Levin, Coleman Bazelon of The Brattle Group, Kostas Liopiros of The Sun Fire Group David Donovan, President of the Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc., and John Hane, Counsel in the communications practice group of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP to discuss if a "grand bargain" to re-allocate spectrum is wise and if it is a feasible option to free spectrum for mobile services. Adam Thierer, President of The Progress & Freedom Foundation, will act as moderator of the event.

" Let's Make a Deal: Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, and a Market in Spectrum ," will be held Tuesday, December 1st from 9:00am to 11:00am in the Holeman Lounge, 13th Floor, at the National Press Club, 529 14th Street, NW in Washington, DC. Those interested in attending can register here. Questions should be directed to Allison Bringardner at abringardner@pff.org or 202-289-8928.

Your blogger presented a similar proposal in his comments to the Wireless Innovation Inquiry, Docket 09-157:

Para. 54 (of the NOI) seeks comment on “innovations in the use of renewable energy and other green technology to makes wireless networks more energy efficient or address other environmental concerns.” At the risk of saying the obvious, the TV broadcast band uses a large amount of electric power to transmit RF signals that are actually received by an ever decreasing number of subscribers. The main apparent need for these transmitters is to guarantee to broadcast licensees “must carry” status with CATV systems. The use of electric power and the RF occupancy appears to be mainly a byproduct of this desired endgoal that gives 90+% of the viewership of licensed TV broadcasters. While over-the- air broadcasting gives consumers access to broadcast signals at no marginal cost compared to the pricing of MVDS service, policy options exist to offer basic MVDS service as comparable cost. For example, part of fees from new users utilizing former TV spectrum could be used to finance “lifeline” MVDS service.

MSS has no objection to giving present TV broadcasters long term must carry status, but questions why this must be accompanied with the waste of electric power and squatting on spectrum to deny it to others. While it is no possible under present law to let broadcasters keep must carry status without transmitting largely “unreceived” signals, MSS urges the Commission to explore and make recommendations to Congress for giving TV broadcasters incentives to cease using large amounts of electric power and cease filling spectrum with largely unwatched signals while retaining today’s must carry rights.No broadcaster commented directly on this point, although MSTV and NAB in joint reply comments chose to mischaracterize it - no doubt to avoid addressing the point in question. Thus it is interesting to see that MSTV's president will be present at the PFF forum.