roundtable: Praise the FCC, don't bury it!

roundtable: Praise the FCC, don't bury it!

Praise the FCC, don't bury it!

W. Curtiss Priest (BMSLIB@mitvma.mit.edu)
Tue, 06 Jun 95 16:59:17 EDT 

Message-Id: <9506062102.AA18119@a.cni.org>
Date:         Tue, 06 Jun 95 16:59:17 EDT
From: "W. Curtiss Priest" <BMSLIB@mitvma.mit.edu>
Subject:      Praise the FCC, don't bury it!
To: Telecommunications Policy Roundtable <ROUNDTABLE@CNI.ORG>


======================================================================== 100
CITS Observations
W. Curtiss Priest, Director
We recently forwarded comments to some lists in support of the FCC's
role during this era.  Here is some more evidence of that need.

The folks at Apple Computer are doing it again!  They are courageously
moving forward with the FCC to get spectrum allocated for
data transmission.

As the correspondence with Jim Lovette indicates (below) they are in
full support of the FCC's role during this era.
The following is from 6/1/95 announcement from p. B7 WSJ:
Cupertineo, Calif  Apple Computer Inc. said it asked the
Federal Communications Commission to set aside a radio
spectrum fro high-speed wireless data communication over
a short distance, such as within schools and rural communities.

The computer maker's proposal is for a National Information
Infrastructure band that could be accessed by the public, using
computers able to scan a given set of frequencies for an available
channel.  Data transmission across greater distances would rely on
other network technologies.

Apple's FCC petition follows a successful effort by the company
to obtain a frequency allocation for hand-held computers, or
personal communications services.  That process took five years,
and final approval came last February, an Apple official said.
(provided under Fair Use, Section 107a, Copyright Law of 1976)

Here is some more insight provided by Jim Lovette:

In particular, note their concern about companies grabbing
spectrum and selling it at high prices!


Return-Path: <LOVETTE@APPLELINK.APPLE.COM>
Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin @) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with
          BSMTP id 0651; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 16:40:01 -0400
Received: from alink-gw.apple.com by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP;
   Mon, 05 Jun 95 16:39:31 EDT
Received: by alink-gw.apple.com
 (921113.SGI.UNSUPPORTED_PROTOTYPE/7-Oct-1993-eef)
        id AA14340; Mon, 5 Jun 95 13:40:39 -0700
        for BMSLIB@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Date: 05 Jun 95 20:38 GMT
From: LOVETTE@AppleLink.Apple.COM (Lovette, James)
Subject: Praise the FCC, don't bury it!
To: BMSLIB@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Message-Id: <802384839.8303448@AppleLink.Apple.COM>



To Curtis Priest, from Jim Lovette

In abbreviated response to the recent very important comments by you, Robert
Kuttner, and others about the role of the FCC----

You are on precisely the right track, however in the wilderness your (and my)
voice may be. A glaring flaw of the "sell the spectrum" arguers is that they
fail to note there is an enormous constituency of valid users who have no
possible way to buy spectrum.  These masses and individuals have to rent
spectrum from those who bought it: a millisecond, a kilohertz, and a hectare at
a time, and the markup put on the airwaves by its owners can be obscene.
Either that, or they don't use the technologies that require spectrum

Some of these are among the most worthy users, headed by educators and students
and joined in line by health care professionals and patients, rural residents,
libraries, neighborhoods, ethnic and special-interest groups, local government,
and even citizens trying to get federal information and services.  Along with
most of what-all goes on through the Internet today and the vaunted NII
tomorrow.

Even the most optimistic zealot (that's me) of one alternative will quickly
admit that it's not a one-stop nirvana, but:  opening major slices of spectrum
to the public for "unlicensed," non-mutually-exclusive, non-auctioned spectrum
is one part of the solution.

Well-thought-out, benevolent protocols and etiquettes that emphasize
ecologically sound spectrum behaviors for coexistence are not just feasible but
downright triumphant, measured against the "spectrum efficiency" of most
regimented licensed usages.  That "chaos" bugaboo just isn't valid.

The FCC has come a long way towards recognizing this.  Last year (in response
to the "Data-PCS" petition I filed 1/28/91) they allocated 20 MHz (1910-1930
MHz) for unlicensed voice and data, albeit that the frequencies they chose are
impacted by present users and so won't be available until the next millenium.
February 7th this year (in acknowledged further response to my petition) they
freed 10 MHz that's immediately available--now.   They've furthermore issued a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the incomprehensible bounty of 8.5 GIGAHERTZ
(!) of unlicensed spectrum in the "mm wave" territory.

Last week I filed another petition, seeking 300 MHz (in the 5 GHz band) for
unlicensed "high-bandwidth wireless LANs, Internet/NII Access, and Community
Networks,"  allowing a rich mixture of technologies, distances and bandwidths.
I call it an "NII Band," for obvious reasons that you'd readily fill in.

Of course I'm confronted with a telco effort to take those same frequencies and
turn them over for "extensions of the broad band network transmission
infraastructure" (read "telco") who will "control admission" to the bands,
limiting access to only "registered" (read that "paying") users and shutting
all others out of the band.  Apparently it isn't obvious, yet, to the telco
clan that unlicensed, high-bandwidth, essentially local communications are what
will create traffic for their "broadband infrastructure."  And if they choke
that off, we'll all lose.  They are so used to complete hegemony they'd rather
shoot the camel before they'd allow his nose under the tent--no matter how far
they'll then have to walk to the next oasis.

There is therefore, at the most primitive level, a burning need for an FCC-like
organism that looks after spectrum-grabs and still steps forward in the public
interest.  It's a tightrope but our present FCC has all the earmarks of a
responsible, receptive, innovative public advocate.   Instead of trashing their
ancestors, we should be touting some of their successes, and demanding even
more.

Auction-based spectrum management is great for the "haves."  (Look at the
winning bidders for wideband PCS.)  And market-auctions should be employed, UP
TO A LIMIT.  But at that point, it should STOP, and preserve a haven for the
rest of us. Let spectrum usage develop along the lines of the Internet: demand
and ingenuity-driven, and continually transmogrifying in response to selfishly
motivated, but ultimately widely valued, benefits.

This is a personal response to you, Curtis Priest, attempting to increase your
sensitivities to one side of these issues.  Or maybe get your energies
stimulated on them--obviously you're doing good things and thinking some right
thoughts.

Jim Lovette
jlovette@apple.com
408-974-1418

_______________________________________________________________________________
|           W. Curtiss Priest, Ph.D., Director       *********************** |
|      Center for Information, Technology, & Society *  Improving humanity * |
|                                                    *  through technology * |
|                  466 Pleasant Street               *********************** |
|                Melrose, MA  02176-4522         BMSLIB@MITVMA.MIT.EDU       |
|                  Voice: 617-662-4044  Gopher or WWW to our publications:   |
|   Fax: 617-662-6882      gopher.eff.org (under similar organizations, CITS |
| WWW: http://www.eff.org, under Documents & File Archives, under Gopher     |
_____________________________________________________________________________|

[CNI Home Page]