NEWS: mobile telecommunications needs 800MHz of spectrum, and quickly

CTIA, the industry body running the San Diego, California, event, has
laid its cards on the table - it reckons that mobile telecommunications
needs 800MHz of spectrum, and quickly.

MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/10/us_radio_spectrum/>

On 11/10/2009 04:11, John Navas wrote:
> CTIA, the industry body running the San Diego, California, event, has
> laid its cards on the table - it reckons that mobile telecommunications
> needs 800MHz of spectrum, and quickly.
>
> MORE:<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/10/us_radio_spectrum/>

"the CTIA is clear that newly identified spectrum should be paired up as
quickly as possible, especially the chunk between 1755MHz and 1780MHz,
which it has identified as a good place to start: "Such a pairing of
spectrum bands would allow for a rapid auction of 50 megahertz of paired
spectrum*".

Pairing up the spectrum, to provide one frequency for an uplink and
another for down, is important for Frequency Division Duplexed systems
such as UMTS and LTE, but it is an unnecessary encumbrance to Time
Division based systems such as WiMAX. It could be argued that it's best
to just sell of the spectrum and let the buyer match up pairs if they
want to, but that wouldn't favour companies who have already invested
millions in LTE deployments - and who happen to be members of the CTIA."
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/30/ctia_fcc/>

The FCC is looking for more spectrum for a variety of systems, not least
for the use of UAV's and for the use of HAPS, perhaps they are
considering HAPS as part of their options for providing broadband in low
population areas.
Proposals for the next World Radiocommunications Conference in January
2012 include:-
"Regulatory measures to facilitate introduction of new aeronautical
mobile (R) service (AM(R)S) systems in the bands 112-117.975 MHz,
960-1164 MHz and 5000-5030 MHz in accordance with
Resolutions 413 (Rev.WRC-07), 417 (WRC-07) and 420 (WRC-07)"
"to consider the results of ITU-R studies and spectrum identification
forgateway links for high altitude platform stations (HAPS) in the range
5850-7075 MHz in order to support operations in the fixed and mobile
services, in accordance with Resolution 734 (Rev.WRC-07)"
<http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=7020039 868>

LR wrote:
> On 11/10/2009 04:11, John Navas wrote:
>> CTIA, the industry body running the San Diego, California, event, has
>> laid its cards on the table - it reckons that mobile telecommunications
>> needs 800MHz of spectrum, and quickly.
>
> "the CTIA is clear that newly identified spectrum should be paired up as
> quickly as possible


Or none, if iToys are throttled to their fair share.

LR schrieb:
> [...] UMTS and LTE, but it is an unnecessary encumbrance to Time
> Division based systems such as WiMAX [...]

LTE exists in both TDD and FDD flavors, as does UMTS.

Wilfried Anders wrote:
> LR schrieb:
>> [...] UMTS and LTE, but it is an unnecessary encumbrance to Time
>> Division based systems such as WiMAX [...]
>
> LTE exists in both TDD and FDD flavors, as does UMTS.
In the US?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPP_Long_Term_Evolution#Frequency_bands_and_chann el_bandwidths>

"Some scuttlebutt from Geneva that has reached Unstrung's ears involves
the possible blending of WiMax and LTE via the IMT-Advanced evaluation
process. One possibility for such a technology merger could see the
802.16m standard becoming the time division duplex (TDD) version of
LTE-Advanced. However, the achievement of such an outcome is considered
to need more political, rather than technical, work."
<http://www.unstrung.com/document.asp?doc_id=182764&>

Not Me wrote:
> LR wrote:
>> On 11/10/2009 04:11, John Navas wrote:
>>> CTIA, the industry body running the San Diego, California, event, has
>>> laid its cards on the table - it reckons that mobile telecommunications
>>> needs 800MHz of spectrum, and quickly.
>>
>> "the CTIA is clear that newly identified spectrum should be paired up
>> as quickly as possible
>
>
> Or none, if iToys are throttled to their fair share.

The problem is that most, it not all, 3G and 3GS iPhones are still in
contract. If AT&T decided to throttle then that's a change in the
contract terms and subscribers with iPhones could cancel service with no
ETF (unless there's already some clause in the contract that throttling
by AT&T is permitted).

You can see why AT&T was in no hurry to enable MMS and why they're in no
hurry to enable throttling, two features that have been available on
other smart phones for years. Apple's been vilified, rather unfairly,
over service and feature issues that are beyond their control. On the
other hand,remember that AT&T was their second choice in networks for
the iPhone and they probably had a good idea that the AT&T network
wasn't ready for the volume of data the iPhone would generate,
especially not the 3G network which is why they first came out with a
non-3G model.

SMS wrote:

> You can see why AT&T was in no hurry to enable MMS and why they're in no
> hurry to enable throttling,

Oops, I meant "tethering" not "throttling."

SMS wrote:
> Not Me wrote:
>> LR wrote:
>>> On 11/10/2009 04:11, John Navas wrote:
>>>> CTIA, the industry body running the San Diego, California, event, has
>>>> laid its cards on the table - it reckons that mobile telecommunications
>>>> needs 800MHz of spectrum, and quickly.
>>>
>>> "the CTIA is clear that newly identified spectrum should be paired up
>>> as quickly as possible
>>
>>
>> Or none, if iToys are throttled to their fair share.
>
> The problem is that most, it not all, 3G and 3GS iPhones are still in
> contract. If AT&T decided to throttle then that's a change in the
> contract terms and subscribers with iPhones could cancel service with no
> ETF (unless there's already some clause in the contract that throttling
> by AT&T is permitted).


The claim of 'force majeure' cures all.

The FCC ought to consider it if AT&T won't.

Not Me wrote:

> The claim of 'force majeure' cures all.

There is no obligation for AT&T to provide ubiquitous connectivity at 3G
speed even to users paying for 3G service. It may hurt AT&T's sales of
new postpaid service, but right now no one's contract is being violated
by AT&T. They are essentially throttling the speed by default, but
they're not removing "unlimited." Their customers aren't too happy about
the situation right now, and I imagine that Apple is upset as well as it
affects iPhone sales in the U.S., but it was Apple that decided to offer
their product on only one carrier.

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 08:36:57 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4ad1fb48$0$1615$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>You can see why AT&T was in no hurry to enable MMS and why they're in no
>hurry to enable throttling, two features that have been available on
>other smart phones for years. Apple's been vilified, rather unfairly,
>over service and feature issues that are beyond their control. On the
>other hand,remember that AT&T was their second choice in networks for
>the iPhone and they probably had a good idea that the AT&T network
>wasn't ready for the volume of data the iPhone would generate,
>especially not the 3G network which is why they first came out with a
>non-3G model.

Total nonsense. As usual.

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

LR wrote:
> [...]
> "Some scuttlebutt from Geneva that has reached Unstrung's ears involves
> the possible blending of WiMax and LTE via the IMT-Advanced evaluation
> process. One possibility for such a technology merger could see the
> 802.16m standard becoming the time division duplex (TDD) version of
> LTE-Advanced. [...]

No need to blend in any WiMax heritage into LTE. TDD is just as well
specified as FDD in 3GPP release 8 and upcoming release 9. Look at TS
25.102, 25.105, 25.123, 25.142 etc. Other documents like TS 25.331 which
describes radio resource control in LTE has both TDD and FDD specs in
one document.

Willi

LR schrieb:
> Wilfried Anders wrote:
>> [...]
>> LTE exists in both TDD and FDD flavors, as does UMTS.
> In the US?
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPP_Long_Term_Evolution#Frequency_bands_and_chann el_bandwidths>
> [...]

AFAIK, there are no commercial LTE installtions active anywhere in the
world, be it TDD or FDD. Once a US operator is issued unpaired spectrum,
and once the technology is commercially available, there is nothing to
keep them from setting up an LTE TDD network.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:55:11 +0200, Wilfried Anders
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in <hb053f$19l$03$1@news.t-online.com>:

>LR schrieb:
>> Wilfried Anders wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> LTE exists in both TDD and FDD flavors, as does UMTS.
>> In the US?
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPP_Long_Term_Evolution#Frequency_bands_and_chann el_bandwidths>
>> [...]
>
>AFAIK, there are no commercial LTE installtions active anywhere in the
>world, be it TDD or FDD. Once a US operator is issued unpaired spectrum,
>and once the technology is commercially available, there is nothing to
>keep them from setting up an LTE TDD network.

True, although there have been field trials for the past couple of years
that have produced very good results.

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

John Navas wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:55:11 +0200, Wilfried Anders
> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in <hb053f$19l$03$1@news.t-online.com>:
>
>> LR schrieb:
>>> Wilfried Anders wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> LTE exists in both TDD and FDD flavors, as does UMTS.
>>> In the US?
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPP_Long_Term_Evolution#Frequency_bands_and_chann el_bandwidths>
>>> [...]
>> AFAIK, there are no commercial LTE installtions active anywhere in the
>> world, be it TDD or FDD. Once a US operator is issued unpaired spectrum,
>> and once the technology is commercially available, there is nothing to
>> keep them from setting up an LTE TDD network.
>
> True, although there have been field trials for the past couple of years
> that have produced very good results.
>

Good enough not to implement, apparently.

On 12/10/2009 21:55, Wilfried Anders wrote:
> LR schrieb:
>> Wilfried Anders wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> LTE exists in both TDD and FDD flavors, as does UMTS.
>> In the US?
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPP_Long_Term_Evolution#Frequency_bands_and_chann el_bandwidths>
>> [...]
>
> AFAIK, there are no commercial LTE installtions active anywhere in the
> world, be it TDD or FDD. Once a US operator is issued unpaired spectrum,
> and once the technology is commercially available, there is nothing to
> keep them from setting up an LTE TDD network.
"The first commercial LTE deployment in the US is now planned for the
second half of 2010,and more operators are expected to follow in
2011–12. Notwithstanding LTE deployment plans, existing EV-DO and HSPA
networks are expected to continue to grow, as they will provide coverage
continuity for mobile data services in locations without LTE services.
It is also worth noting that no US operators have the new 700 MHz
spectrum with 20 MHz bandwidth. They will therefore need to use the same
frequency in each cell sector for their LTE networks. This frequency
reuse scheme allows better use of the spectrum, but also
introduces higher amounts of interference, especially at the edge of the
cell, and as a result the user experiences lower data rates. Given the
situation with spectrum allocation in the US, operators will focus on
LTE FDD. Both 700 MHz and Advanced Wireless Services (AWS)18
bands will be candidates for LTE.
Spectrum in US
There has historically been less harmonisation of spectrum usage in the
US than in many other countries, and there has been a need for operators
to negotiate with each other ast hey deploy their networks across the
country. This situation has improved in recent years.
The FCC held AWS band and 700 MHz band auctions in 2006 and 2008,
through which AWS licence holder gained access to 2X10 MHz FDD spectrum
nationwide and in key cities. The 700 MHz licence holders gained access
to 2X6 MHz FDD spectrum nationwide. These new spectrum blocks are ideal
for LTE nationwide mobile networks in the US, as they allow
license holders to deploy such networks in lower frequency bands.
However, the spectrum allocation of 2x6 MHz FDD blocks are not ideal for
LTE as the limited bandwidth does not allow its full efficiencies to be
attained."
<http://www.umts-forum.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,2138/Itemid,12/>

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:08:39 -0400, News <News@Groups.Name> wrote in
<-fudnfKDoYpKwknXnZ2dnUVZ_opi4p2d@speakeasy.net>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:55:11 +0200, Wilfried Anders
>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in <hb053f$19l$03$1@news.t-online.com>:
>>
>>> LR schrieb:
>>>> Wilfried Anders wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> LTE exists in both TDD and FDD flavors, as does UMTS.
>>>> In the US?
>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPP_Long_Term_Evolution#Frequency_bands_and_chann el_bandwidths>
>>>> [...]
>>> AFAIK, there are no commercial LTE installtions active anywhere in the
>>> world, be it TDD or FDD. Once a US operator is issued unpaired spectrum,
>>> and once the technology is commercially available, there is nothing to
>>> keep them from setting up an LTE TDD network.
>>
>> True, although there have been field trials for the past couple of years
>> that have produced very good results.
>
>Good enough not to implement, apparently.

Implementation has been moving forward according to plan.

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

John Navas wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:08:39 -0400, News <News@Groups.Name> wrote in
> <-fudnfKDoYpKwknXnZ2dnUVZ_opi4p2d@speakeasy.net>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:55:11 +0200, Wilfried Anders
>>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in <hb053f$19l$03$1@news.t-online.com>:
>>>
>>>> LR schrieb:
>>>>> Wilfried Anders wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> LTE exists in both TDD and FDD flavors, as does UMTS.
>>>>> In the US?
>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPP_Long_Term_Evolution#Frequency_bands_and_chann el_bandwidths>
>>>>> [...]
>>>> AFAIK, there are no commercial LTE installtions active anywhere in the
>>>> world, be it TDD or FDD. Once a US operator is issued unpaired spectrum,
>>>> and once the technology is commercially available, there is nothing to
>>>> keep them from setting up an LTE TDD network.
>>> True, although there have been field trials for the past couple of years
>>> that have produced very good results.
>> Good enough not to implement, apparently.
>
> Implementation has been moving forward according to plan.
>

Which I'm sure you can cite. Right now...

News wrote:

> Good enough not to implement, apparently.

Verizon will launch LTE in 2010. AT&T originally said that they'd launch
in 2013, but now they've moved that up to 2011. Verizon's already begun
testing LTE.

AT&T is still struggling to complete the deployment of its W-CDMA
network, so give it some time to get that finished and start on LTE.

Besides, you'll still need LTE handsets to use on the LTE network and
that will take a year or so as well.

The CTIA claim that they need more spectrum is bogus. The carriers have
lots of spectrum that they haven't used yet, as well as spectrum that is
being used inefficiently. AT&T's efforts to move as much usage to W-CDMA
from GSM is an effort to make more efficient use of its spectrum, and in
the cities where they've moved W-CDMA to 800 MHz it's resulted in a big
improvement in network performance. Why they waited so long for San
Francisco Bay Area, which has the 2nd largest number of iPhones in the
U.S., is something that only they can answer.

If we see an LTE iPhone next year it would have to be on Verizon.

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:11:37 -0700, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>CTIA, the industry body running the San Diego, California, event, has
>laid its cards on the table - it reckons that mobile telecommunications
>needs 800MHz of spectrum, and quickly.
>
>MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/10/us_radio_spectrum/>

The original ex parte filing (FCC GN Docket 09-51) is at:
<http://www.ctia.org/media/press/body.cfm/prid/1866>
This is the proposed "National Broadband Plan for our Future" as
required by the Recovery Act of 2009. It also involves "Fostering
Innovation and Investment in the Wireless Communications Market" (FCC
GN Docket 09-157). There have been about 100 comments about the plan
so far and growing. However, the FCC allowed only 15 days between
request for replies to comments. Obviously, the FCC is in a terrible
hurry to make all this happen. The CTIA requested an extension for
the comment deadline so it can read them all (about 3,000 pages so
far).
<http://files.ctia.org/pdf/filings/091002_Competition_and_Innovation_Extension_Reques t_FINAL.pdf>
I don't if they received the extension.

Oddly, not only does the CTIA want 800MHz within 6 years, it seems to
want it for not quite cellular applications (mHealth and Smart Grids
were mentioned).
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHealth>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid>
Assuming that the 800MHz of additional bandwidth will go to consumer
cellular and mobile data, just might be wrong.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

In article <4ad6235f$0$1635$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Verizon will launch LTE in 2010. AT&T originally said that they'd launch
> in 2013, but now they've moved that up to 2011. Verizon's already begun
> testing LTE.

it's going to be very limited deployment in 2010. from what i've heard,
data cards only, then rolled out to voice handsets.

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:49:01 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote in
<4KidnWHHaNtlnUvXnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> :

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:08:39 -0400, News <News@Groups.Name> wrote in
>> <-fudnfKDoYpKwknXnZ2dnUVZ_opi4p2d@speakeasy.net>:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:55:11 +0200, Wilfried Anders
>>>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in <hb053f$19l$03$1@news.t-online.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> LR schrieb:
>>>>>> Wilfried Anders wrote:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> LTE exists in both TDD and FDD flavors, as does UMTS.
>>>>>> In the US?
>>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPP_Long_Term_Evolution#Frequency_bands_and_chann el_bandwidths>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>> AFAIK, there are no commercial LTE installtions active anywhere in the
>>>>> world, be it TDD or FDD. Once a US operator is issued unpaired spectrum,
>>>>> and once the technology is commercially available, there is nothing to
>>>>> keep them from setting up an LTE TDD network.
>>>> True, although there have been field trials for the past couple of years
>>>> that have produced very good results.
>>> Good enough not to implement, apparently.
>>
>> Implementation has been moving forward according to plan.
>
>Which I'm sure you can cite. Right now...

I can. Apparently you can't.

--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:49:01 -0400, News <News@Group.Name> wrote in
> <4KidnWHHaNtlnUvXnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> :
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:08:39 -0400, News <News@Groups.Name> wrote in
>>> <-fudnfKDoYpKwknXnZ2dnUVZ_opi4p2d@speakeasy.net>:
>>>
>>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:55:11 +0200, Wilfried Anders
>>>>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in <hb053f$19l$03$1@news.t-online.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> LR schrieb:
>>>>>>> Wilfried Anders wrote:
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> LTE exists in both TDD and FDD flavors, as does UMTS.
>>>>>>> In the US?
>>>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3GPP_Long_Term_Evolution#Frequency_bands_and_chann el_bandwidths>
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> AFAIK, there are no commercial LTE installtions active anywhere in the
>>>>>> world, be it TDD or FDD. Once a US operator is issued unpaired spectrum,
>>>>>> and once the technology is commercially available, there is nothing to
>>>>>> keep them from setting up an LTE TDD network.
>>>>> True, although there have been field trials for the past couple of years
>>>>> that have produced very good results.
>>>> Good enough not to implement, apparently.
>>> Implementation has been moving forward according to plan.
>> Which I'm sure you can cite. Right now...
>
> I can. Apparently you can't.
>

Your claim isn't mine, moron.

On 14/10/2009 21:38, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:11:37 -0700, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> CTIA, the industry body running the San Diego, California, event, has
>> laid its cards on the table - it reckons that mobile telecommunications
>> needs 800MHz of spectrum, and quickly.
>>
>> MORE:<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/10/us_radio_spectrum/>
>
> The original ex parte filing (FCC GN Docket 09-51) is at:
> <http://www.ctia.org/media/press/body.cfm/prid/1866>
> This is the proposed "National Broadband Plan for our Future" as
> required by the Recovery Act of 2009. It also involves "Fostering
> Innovation and Investment in the Wireless Communications Market" (FCC
> GN Docket 09-157).
I would guess that the CTIA were more interested in that one, although
it is also included in the broadband plan, as they are asked for a
response to spectrum usage etc.
Headings include:-
"B. Innovative Uses of Wireless Services
C. Spectrum Use and Availability
1. Current Spectrum Management Practices
2. Making Spectrum Available for New Uses
3. Access to Spectrum
4. Interference Protection
5. Band Sharing and Efficient Use"
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-66A1.txt>

> There have been about 100 comments about the plan

I would guess that most of those are about "Broadband" rather than
wireless.e.g.
<http://www.firstmile.us/pubs/FCCComments/firstmileusfcc090608.pdf>
<https://portal.neca.org/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_307_206_0_43/http%3B/prodnet.www.neca.org/wawatch/wwpdf/831nasuca.pdf>

> so far and growing. However, the FCC allowed only 15 days between
> request for replies to comments. Obviously, the FCC is in a terrible
> hurry to make all this happen. The CTIA requested an extension for
> the comment deadline so it can read them all (about 3,000 pages so
> far).
> <http://files.ctia.org/pdf/filings/091002_Competition_and_Innovation_Extension_Reques t_FINAL.pdf>
> I don't if they received the extension.
>
> Oddly, not only does the CTIA want 800MHz within 6 years, it seems to
> want it for not quite cellular applications (mHealth and Smart Grids
> were mentioned).
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHealth>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid>
> Assuming that the 800MHz of additional bandwidth will go to consumer
> cellular and mobile data, just might be wrong.
>

Fcc NOI "A National Broadband Plan for Our Future"
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-31A1.txt>

Already plenty of Spectrum need is for smaller cells.

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:82j2d5tekt5dn8isn5jeecfnoa36ca7ram@4ax.com...
> CTIA, the industry body running the San Diego, California, event, has
> laid its cards on the table - it reckons that mobile telecommunications
> needs 800MHz of spectrum, and quickly.
>
> MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/10/us_radio_spectrum/>

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:30:30 +0100, LR <lrme@privacy.net> wrote:

>> The original ex parte filing (FCC GN Docket 09-51) is at:
>> <http://www.ctia.org/media/press/body.cfm/prid/1866>
>> This is the proposed "National Broadband Plan for our Future" as
>> required by the Recovery Act of 2009. It also involves "Fostering
>> Innovation and Investment in the Wireless Communications Market" (FCC
>> GN Docket 09-157).

>I would guess that the CTIA were more interested in that one, although
>it is also included in the broadband plan, as they are asked for a
>response to spectrum usage etc.

Well, the original FCC request for comments suggested many shifts in
how spectrum, usage, licensing, sharing, etc. I've seen this before.
Huge changes are suggested, but only minor tweaks eventually appear.

The mystery (for me) is why would the FCC issue two separate dockets
for all this? I have some conspiracy theories, but I'll keep them to
myself. Well, maybe just one... spectrum sharing sounds very much
like the FCC wants to get into the spectrum leasing business. They
got burned by the Nextwave bankruptcy fiasco and figure that since the
Supreme Court thinks that auction winners are forever, even with
non-payment, then perhaps with leasing, the FCC would have more
control over revenue while making spectrum somewhat more affordable
and accessible.

><http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-66A1.txt>

The PDF version is easier to read:
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-66A1.pdf>
Google seems to be finding only the text versions and missing the
PDF's.

> > There have been about 100 comments about the plan
>
>I would guess that most of those are about "Broadband" rather than
>wireless.e.g.

The term "Broadband" is badly defined and badly misused. For example,
cramming more users into public safety spectrum using narrowbanding
(12.5KHz and eventual 6.25KHz channel spacing) has somehow become part
of "broadbanding". I suggest we replace "broadband" with "spectrum
management reform".

>Fcc NOI "A National Broadband Plan for Our Future"
><http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-31A1.txt>

PDF version:
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-31A1.pdf>
The index is off a bit. It covers probably all of the current
spectrum management issues. We'll soon see how many are actually
addressed. Expect Change(tm).



--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 15/10/2009 15:54, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> The mystery (for me) is why would the FCC issue two separate dockets
> for all this?

There are more than 2.
e.g.<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-65A1.pdf>
I think they started off with a basic idea and then realised they would
have to include some areas in greater detail.
Having some time to spare this morning I actually went through all the
"Daily Digests" from April.
<http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2009/dd2009.html>

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:06:18 +0100, LR <lrme@privacy.net> wrote:

>On 15/10/2009 15:54, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> The mystery (for me) is why would the FCC issue two separate dockets
>> for all this?
>
> There are more than 2.
>e.g.<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-65A1.pdf>
>I think they started off with a basic idea and then realised they would
>have to include some areas in greater detail.

I can see why the CTIA asked for more time.

> Having some time to spare this morning I actually went through all the
>"Daily Digests" from April.
><http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2009/dd2009.html>

Now, if you really want to burn some time, go unto the FCC comment
search pile at:
<http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi>
Inscribe a docket number such as 09-65 into the first box (Proceeding)
and see what floats to the surface. Most of it looks like "don't
forget about us" advertising for various organizations from lobbyists.
09-51 returns the first 100 comments out of up to 10,000. The CTIA
stuff can be retreived by adding "CTIA" into box 4 (On behalf of)
which returns 23 comments. The first few comments I read discussed
the benefits provided by the CTIA for the handicapped, for CO2
reduction (smart-grid), and requests for speedy relocation of existing
(unathorized) 700MHz and AWS-1 systems. If you find anything useful,
please let me know.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 15/10/2009 16:38, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:06:18 +0100, LR<lrme@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 15/10/2009 15:54, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>
>>> The mystery (for me) is why would the FCC issue two separate dockets
>>> for all this?
>>
>> There are more than 2.
>> e.g.<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-65A1.pdf>
>> I think they started off with a basic idea and then realised they would
>> have to include some areas in greater detail.
>
> I can see why the CTIA asked for more time.
>
>> Having some time to spare this morning I actually went through all the
>> "Daily Digests" from April.
>> <http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2009/dd2009.html>
>
> Now, if you really want to burn some time, go unto the FCC comment
> search pile at:
> <http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi>
> Inscribe a docket number such as 09-65 into the first box (Proceeding)
> and see what floats to the surface. Most of it looks like "don't
> forget about us" advertising for various organizations from lobbyists.
> 09-51 returns the first 100 comments out of up to 10,000. The CTIA
> stuff can be retreived by adding "CTIA" into box 4 (On behalf of)
> which returns 23 comments. The first few comments I read discussed
> the benefits provided by the CTIA for the handicapped, for CO2
> reduction (smart-grid), and requests for speedy relocation of existing
> (unathorized) 700MHz and AWS-1 systems. If you find anything useful,
> please let me know.
>
A quick try of that site came across this:
<http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=7020039 747>

On 15/10/2009 17:02, LR wrote:
> On 15/10/2009 16:38, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:06:18 +0100, LR<lrme@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 15/10/2009 15:54, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>
>>>> The mystery (for me) is why would the FCC issue two separate dockets
>>>> for all this?
>>>
>>> There are more than 2.
>>> e.g.<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-65A1.pdf>
>>> I think they started off with a basic idea and then realised they would
>>> have to include some areas in greater detail.
>>
>> I can see why the CTIA asked for more time.
>>
>>> Having some time to spare this morning I actually went through all the
>>> "Daily Digests" from April.
>>> <http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2009/dd2009.html>
>>
>> Now, if you really want to burn some time, go unto the FCC comment
>> search pile at:
>> <http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi>
>> Inscribe a docket number such as 09-65 into the first box (Proceeding)
>> and see what floats to the surface. Most of it looks like "don't
>> forget about us" advertising for various organizations from lobbyists.
>> 09-51 returns the first 100 comments out of up to 10,000. The CTIA
>> stuff can be retreived by adding "CTIA" into box 4 (On behalf of)
>> which returns 23 comments. The first few comments I read discussed
>> the benefits provided by the CTIA for the handicapped, for CO2
>> reduction (smart-grid), and requests for speedy relocation of existing
>> (unathorized) 700MHz and AWS-1 systems. If you find anything useful,
>> please let me know.
>>
> A quick try of that site came across this:
> <http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=7020039 747>
>
Perhaps I should have mentioned that while there is a throwaway line
regarding "BRS" in that document:-
"With just under 410 MHz of spectrum – a number that includes AWS-1, 700
MHz and BRS allocations that may not yet be available for use."
I did see a recent docket regarding BRS/EBS leases.
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-70A1.pdf>

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:02:15 +0100, LR <lrme@privacy.net> wrote:

>On 15/10/2009 16:38, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> Now, if you really want to burn some time, go unto the FCC comment
>> search pile at:
>> <http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi>
>> Inscribe a docket number such as 09-65 into the first box (Proceeding)
>> and see what floats to the surface. Most of it looks like "don't
>> forget about us" advertising for various organizations from lobbyists.
>> 09-51 returns the first 100 comments out of up to 10,000. The CTIA
>> stuff can be retreived by adding "CTIA" into box 4 (On behalf of)
>> which returns 23 comments. The first few comments I read discussed
>> the benefits provided by the CTIA for the handicapped, for CO2
>> reduction (smart-grid), and requests for speedy relocation of existing
>> (unathorized) 700MHz and AWS-1 systems. If you find anything useful,
>> please let me know.

>A quick try of that site came across this:
><http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=7020039 747>

Thanks. That's the original comment by the CTIA claiming that 800Mhz
of spectrum is needed.

The first thing that caught my eye is:
Watching a YouTube video consumes 100 times the bandwidth
of a voice call.
Skype uses 30-70Kbits/sec. YouTube HD seems to have an upper limit
around 350Kbits/sec download. That would be 5 to 10 times the
bandwidth.

Other amazing facts include:
African Americans are the most active users of the mobile
Internet, with 29 percent of African Americans and 29 percent
of Hispanics reporting that they use the Internet on their
handheld devices on a typical day.

By 2020, mobile devices will be the primary Internet devices
for most people in the world.

I guess the telcos should just give up on FTTH, FIOS, cable modems,
etc as cellular internet is predicted to render them obsolete.

On Pg 9, is an interesting chart comparing iPhone and Smartphone
internet usage. The only problem is that it's 22 months out of date.
I wonder why they would use such old data.

Some of the future projects remind me of the WorldCom claims that
internet traffic doubles every 3-4 months.
<http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/itcom.internet.growth.pdf> Sec 3.
The dramatic increase in cellular broadband uptake is also inflated
due to the mandatory requirement for obtaining a broadband plan with
the subsidized purchase of a smartphone.

However, the CTIA does make some important points.
With just under 410 MHz of spectrum a number that includes
AWS-1, 700 MHz and BRS allocations that may not yet be
available for use U.S. wireless carriers provide service
to more than 270 million subscribers. With more than
651,000 subscribers served per MHz of spectrum allocated,
U.S. carrier efficiency far surpasses that of other
carriers in the OECD’s top ten countries by GDP.
See table on Pg 17.

Oddly:
...the 1755-1780 MHz band should be reallocated for licensed
CMRS use, paired with the 2155-2180 MHz spectrum.
LTE requires unpaired spectrum, which makes me wonder if the CTIA is
running a few years behind on the technology.

Enough for a first reading...


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558