DoD OFFICIAL ANTICIPATES MORE WI-FI SPECTRUM

Speaking at a wireless security conference sponsored by the Stevens Institute of Technology, Stenbit was asked about the need for more spectrum and at first tried to playfully dodge the question. “Where’s the NTIA guy?” he asked, pointing to the back of the room. Told that NTIA Asst. Dir. Michael Gallagher already had left, he shrugged and agreed to field the query.

Technology is a key component in increased military flexibility on spectrum, he said. For example, lasers will be used in place of some existing communications, shifting the military out of commercial spectrum areas “to where the commercial people aren’t.” Saying many in the private sector criticized the level of efficiency of military applications with spectrum, Stenbit said progress was being made on that front. He referred to a current communications system that the military operated at about 140 kbps. He said using “Internet-style” packets and switches that same service could operate at 80 Mbps. “That’s a big difference,” Stenbit said, and would free significant spectrum.

“We object mightily” to those who believe the military is inflexible or wedded to inefficient technologies, he said. He also praised FCC Chmn. Michael Powell -- “he deserves a lot of credit” -- for working closely with NTIA on more properly allocating commercial and governmental spectrum.

Billions of potential dollars are lost each year due to cybersecurity vulnerabilities, said Paul Kolodzy, dir. of the Wireless Network Security Center at Stevens, and billions more will need to be spent to retrofit networks that didn’t have security as a core part of their design. Wireless presents a new security challenge, panelists agreed, but there was little enthusiasm for an active govt. role in securing wireless security.

“As early as 10 years ago there was no concern about cybersecurity,” Kolodzy said, but it’s a real issue now, and wireless Internet connections including Wi-Fi provide yet another avenue of attack, including denial of service attacks. Several panelists agreed that consumer electronics manufacturers and network equipment manufacturers needed to put more focus on security at the initial design phase, although the sense also was that market demand for security was ensuring that. Upgrading legacy equipment and networks will be expensive, however, Kolodzy cautioned.

Wi-Fi and other unlicensed technologies have a higher security risk, Verizon Pres. Lawrence Babbio said. Compared with services in licensed spectrum, he said unlicensed services had security risks “more than tenfold [higher]… they get exponential.” The private sector will spend most of the money to secure wireless transmissions, Babbio said, but he and Anser CEO Ruth David agreed companies would need to see a return on their investment. “If we focus on wireless security [spending] in the context of homeland security alone, we will not succeed,” said David, who is on the Dept. of Homeland Security advisory council, arguing that there must be “dual benefits” of security and return on investment.

Incumbent providers may be best equipped to make those investments, Babbio said. Noting that start-ups needed 4-6 years to earn a return on investment, he said an incumbent making incremental improvements on existing architecture was “probably in the best position to absorb incremental capital investments and wait for a return.” He said it would be less expensive for an incumbent wireless provider, for example, to take the next step of providing secure Wi-Fi roaming extensions for wireless phone users or to extend DSL with Wi- Fi.

Networks should be funded privately but one panelist saw a role for the govt. in ensuring interoperability of networks. Govt. shouldn’t fund proprietary networks -- “you have to come up with the money yourselves” -- said Telecom Ventures Chmn. Rajendra Singh, co-founder of Teligent. But he said the ever-increasing demand of consumers to have seamless integration of networks would cause network operators to say, “I want to sell my air time, not theirs.” Govt. through regulation could be a “catalyst” toward interoperability, including promotion of secure interoperability standards.

Babbio agreed standards were important, but hoped they would emerge from industry negotiations, perhaps followed by regulations “from whatever governmental agency is appropriate.” National standards are critical, he said, suggesting it would be almost impossible for network operators to comply with multiple state and local regulations. But David went one step further, saying standards should be international: “The footprint we're talking about is global.”

Govt. R&D also could play a role in standards development, said Rep. Lewis (R-Cal.), chmn. of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. He said in recent years Congress had reversed annual cuts in R&D spending, both basic and targeted, and that spending already was bearing fruit in wireless security improvements. That focus had increased after Sept. 11, he said, because now “the war on terrorism is the center of all of our debates.”

Much of the security concerns with Wi-Fi and other technologies can be addressed “at the end points,” David said. Babbio agreed, saying most wireless connections at some point used land lines. Singh said solutions to securing end points “are in the toolbox… and are being sought and implemented.” He saw no separation between security needs for homeland security or consumer satisfaction, arguing both used the same tools and were “a good thing,” a point echoed by David.

Addressing the hype surrounding Wi-Fi and interoperability of wireless and wired networks, Babbio said “a lot of technologies do start out with a hype factor.” He said “revolutionary technologies take off far slower in the early years than expected,” then grow “much faster in later years,” predicting the same for wireless Internet.