Answer the Questions before August, 1996 if you want cheaper, faster, data communications! Dave Hughes dave@oldcolo.com In the 25 page Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), ET Docket No. 96-102, in the matter of "Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Provide for Unlicenced NII/SUPERNet Operations in the 5 GHz Range, a number of tough questions were asked - especially on the subject of 'longer range' - 10-15kms and 'higher power' - 1 watt services. This NPRM was, of course, triggered by the 1995 Petitions by both Apple Computer, and WINForum - an industry group - seeking new 'unlicenced' spectrum. In the NPRM, which has only a 90 day comment period, the FCC 'proposed' to allow for high speed (20mbs) low power ( -10 dBW or 0.1 watt) unlicenced spectrum (SUPERNet) in both the 5.15-5.35 GHZ and 5.725-5.875 GHz spectrum (350 mhz) for, essentially, wireless lans. But they did NOT propose '...to accomodate the higher power, longer range communications links sought by the petitioners [Apple] at this time.' This is partly because, according to FCC staffers Apple did not answer key technical and regulatory questions and concerns which must be answered before the FCC makes rules permitting the new services without posing "...unacceptable interference risks..." Instead, they ask a series of questions, which if Commentors or Petitioners answer satisfactorily, *may* lead the Commission to support 150mhz in the 5.275-5.875 GHz for longer range, higher power, unlicenced use. Comments by the Commissioners indicate an interest, even a tilt toward, the longer range unlicenced-services, but frankly they don't know 'how' it can be done. Tell em. These are the questions which the FCC has put to anyone who comments on the NPRM. (And anyone *may* comment, formally in paper writing, or by e-mail to 96-102@fcc.gov and, by law, all comments must be considered, and their content addressed by the staff in their recommendations to the Commissioners before final action. As clearly explained by a key FCC Staffer on a panel at a recent conference, the FCC *wants* comments from the general public, especially where the public can express the public 'need' for such services in specific terms. I recommend that those commenting read the full NPRM, and comment. Its available from www.fcc.gov or by anon ftp from oldcolo.com pub/wireless. But whether or not you read the entire document it is *very* important that you comment - lest the large companies, including AT&T, and the Amateur Radio League (AARL) who have already expressed their *opposition* to the 'community networking' (longer range, higher power) bands, carry the day. I have here paraphrased the context of the questions and request for comments for reasons of brevity. The quotations are directly from the official NPRM. These are the key. Answer them satisfactorily, and there is a chance the public will have no-licence, community-level high data speed, communications. 1. In the context of considering the 5 GHz range, where the "...spectrum below this range is too congested, and higher frequencies would both increase the cost od equipment and would have even more limited propegation characteristics..." the question the FCC asks is: "We seek comment on whether 350MHz is necessary to provide this service in the 5GHz range." 2. "As recommended by NTIA and others, we agree that additional studies of spectrum sharing between the proposed unlicenced operations and existing and other operations in the 5.15 - 5.35 GHZ and 5.725 - 5.875 GHz bands and request that interested parties address this matter in their comments." 3. "We are not, however, proposing to accomodate the higher power, longer range communications links sought by the petitioners at this time." "Nevertheless, we find merit in the concept of longer range community networks and seek comment on whether to permit such higher power operation at up to 1 watt of transmitter output power within the 5.725 - 5.875GHz band." 4. "Are there any rule changes desirable for these or other licenced allocations, to broaden eligibility or expand flexibilty or otherwise eliminate regulatory barriers that may now prevent that spectrum from being used in community networks?" 5. "We request comment on whether antenna gain should be limited and, if so, to what level." 6. "We also note that there may be a considerable difference between the interference potential of existing spread spectrum transmitters and the modulation systems contemplated by Apple. We seek comment on the similarities or differences in interference potential of these two types of devices." 7. "We believe that providing for longer range operations may promote the development of community networks that would provide users with affordable access to a broad range of data communications services. We also request comment, however, on whether such community network operation would be better accomdated on licenced basis, either in this band, as discussed below, or in other bands presently available for licenced use. For example, could such uses be implemented by PCS licensees in the 3 GHz range or by providers soon to be licenced at 28GHz, 38GHz and above 40GHz?" 8. "What would be the regulatory implications, if any, of such long-range network if it were connected to the public switched telephone network?" 9. "If we were to permit these higher power community networks in the upper band [5.725 - 5.875], is sharing with the proposed lower power devices feasible?" 10. "We are proposing that NII/SUPERNet devices not be deemed to cause interference to licenced services, provided they are located indoors or employ an outdoor antenna that is mounted 15 meters (16.4 yards) or less above ground"..."...devices with outdoor antennas higher than 15 meters would be required to cease operation or make some accomodation such as limiting power to eliminate any harmful interference caused to a licenced operation."..."Finally, consistent with Part 15 opeation, we also propose that NII/SUPERNet devices must accept any interference caused by licenced services. We request comment on this approach." 11. "...if we were to change our current proposal in order to provide for higher power community network operations...it may be appropriate to licence this portion of the spectrum and, in the case of mutually-applications, use competitive bidding to award such licences. We note that such point-to-point operations are similar to existing licenced fixed operations and request comment on whether such licencing may lead to more efficient use of the spectrum." 12. "We request comment on..." a. "... whether market forces under a licencing scheme would significantly increase spectrum efficiency..." b. "...how licencing would impact longer range community networks envisioned by the petitioners..." c. "...and on any additional considerations or rules that might be desirable to ensure that licenced and unlicenced operations could both operate in the same spectrum." 13. "Apple's proposal is supported be a number of parties who argue that a new Part 16 of the rules would provide these proposed unlicenced devices additional rights to the spectrum while maintaining their unlicenced status...to protect NII/SUPERNet devices from incursions by other services."..."...we propose to codify...under Part 15 of our rules [denying Part 16]..." "We request comment on this approach and any alternatives." 14. "If higher status [of the NII/SUPERNet] is requested, is existing Commission authority sufficient to to grant it or is additional staturory authroity from Congress required?" 15. "Apple raises the issue of whether ISM devices [the proposed NII bands are already in ISM bands - Part 15] ....should be required to comply with more restrictive emissions or other restrictions."..."We tentitively believe that such restrictions would be an unjustified burden on the ISM user community"..." We solicit comments on this issue." 16. There is a requirement in law that the FCC do an 'Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)' of the expected impact on 'small entities' of the proposals suggested in this document. Appendix B to the NPRM contains that very brief 'analysis' the key operative paragraph of which states "D. Description, Potential Impact, and Number of Small Entities Affected: This proposal may provide new opportunities for radio manufacturers and suppliers of radio equipment, some of which may be small businesses, to develop and sell new equipment. We are unable to quantify other potential effects on small entities." "We invite specific comments on this point by interested parties" Comments on this IRFA must be *seperately* identified with a seperate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (the guts of which is quoted above). I intend to comment strongly on this rather superficial 'analysis' because it does NOT show awareness that, depending upon how the rules are written, and whether there is an 'auction to the highest bidder' of the 'community networking' spectrum, there either will be, or not, an enormous opportunity for multiple small entrepeneurial start ups - both in radio and computers, which are converging, to invent a whole series of devices. With the convergence of data processing and radio, a large industry, mirroring the growth the personal computer industry with thousands of companies, can be stimulated - so long as they can compete on the basis of 'best radio at the lowest cost' in shared spectrum bands, and NOT simply the singular winners by bidding of the largest companies who also will select a very limited range of suppliers. Remember, you can comment by EMAIL to 96-102@fcc.com Do so, or quityourbitchen about how slow 28.8 modems or cell phone data transfers are, how bizzare ISDN has become, how costly dedicated line services can be and how pricey digital cell phone will be, how iffy cable modems seem - and just accept either a high bandwidth service, or a cheap service, but not both - which no-licence wireless can bring you - at least between you and the POP. Dave Hughes dave@oldcolo.com Who will answer the NPRM aplenty, in policy, practical, technical, and visionary terms for rules that will last until the year 3000. PS. You can also read my paper "The Case for Wireless Shared Public Spectrum" - which is a broader justification than this FCC action contemplates, and more an explanation of why this is possible, technically, what the public 'need' is, and what broad types of rules should be adopted by the FCC for the revolution in digital radio communciations. It also is at anon ftp oldcolo.com under pub/wireless.