FREQUENCY HOPPING MAY BE PART OF MAJOR UWB ORDER

“There really aren’t going to be any major, major changes,” Thomas told us in an interview. “The primary reason is industry is asking us keep the rules stable. The reason they're asking us to keep the rules stable is they're just bringing out products. They don’t want a new set of rules to obsolete a new set of products. The new order is going to be nibbling at the edges. There’s not going to be anything really profound in it.”

Thomas said the only significant issue in play is FH. OET was still deciding whether to propose rules in the area as part of the next report: “The truth of the matter is we're seriously considering it. It depends on a lot of things. We're in the process of doing some science, some simulation.” But Thomas said otherwise, at this point, FCC wants to take a wait-&-see approach on UWB: “In the main, it’s going to be very anticlimactic. We want to make sure that what we did was okay and doesn’t cause harm… We're very, very confident of that, but we want to keep the target stable enough until that’s confirmed. Secondly, industry is telling us, ‘Hey, we're invested in chips. Don’t change our rules so we need to go through another run.'”

The NTIA and FCC labs are both looking at FH. Thomas said the primary question is “what if it meets our rules when it hops but not when it’s frozen, when it’s locked. Why couldn’t we allow that and what would be the harm of that. We're in the process of researching that question.”

Thomas said if work on FH isn’t complete the next 2 to 3 months when the broader report is expected, the Commission may pursue a standalone order on just that issue. “It depends on how definitive our results are… We really want to get it right and we're working very judiciously.”

The IEEE has looked closely at FH as part of proposed standards for wireless personal area networks, but the talks have stalled by most accounts. Thomas said: “We're not governed by the IEEE, but we certainly take seriously what they do because they're a very competent technical body.” Thomas said the FCC has counseled various parties in the IEEE fight not to file for FCC decisions until the Commission has more time to test for potential problems. “We've said don’t waste your time until we understand this,” he said. “If this is a nonstarter, it makes no sense. You can file your petition, you certainly have a right to do that, but we're just going to deny it.” Thomas said he expects the science “is not going to be black and white,” leading to an easy policy call.

In brief remarks to delegates, Thomas said the conference demonstrates the growing interest in UWB. “International interest in UWB is clearly on the upswing. I guess you're well aware that this task force has had 3 meetings. What you may not be aware of is this meeting has over 100 technical papers. That is in total more than the combined number of papers that were submitted at the last two meetings. Obviously, the interest is going up and the debate is going up. I know some people in this room have concerns about ultrawideband, but I think an international meeting sharing technical facts and technical views can only help.” -- Howard Buskirk

UWB Meeting Notebook…

U.S. sources at the task force meeting said one of the biggest challenges is to sort through how many European objections to UWB are legitimate and to what extent they're aimed at preventing U.S. companies from gaining a competitive advantage. “There are always a lot of games played at these meetings,” said a U.S. delegate: “Countries like France just haven’t done that much with UWB. They want to slow things down until they catch up.” One senior official noted that similar discussions have dominated international communications meetings for years: “The Europeans are extremely protectionist. They have a strong tendency if the Americans are ahead to establish a stand that the America should go back to ground zero and establish a level playing field with Europe.” The official said it can be difficult to sort through which objections are based on science and which on politics. “There are people in this room who legitimately and for ethically correct reasons -- maybe they're technically misinformed, maybe not -- who have concerns this could cause problems,” the source said. “That’s legitimate. I'm also fairly sure there’s a lot of people in this room who are basically trying to negate the lead the U.S. has in this technology.” One way of telling: “If they say it’s a bad idea, we don’t want to do ultrawideband in our country, I think what that would say is they really have serious concerns. But if they say UWB isn’t a bad idea, but the Americans aren’t quite doing it right -- instead of having the sharp breakoffs on the mask, we're going to tailor it so it fits. I think that might be the surest sign they're basically trying to give their industry an even start.” One company official at the meeting said other nations are nervous that UWB will erode their ability to control how spectrum is used: “One way to tell if someone is protecting a service is if they say UWB should be above 6 GHz. There’s no reason to their arguments. It’s clear they're not thinking about it from a technological standpoint. What happens at 6 GHz and 2 GHz is completely unrelated. They're revealing a religious reason as opposed to a technical one.”

--

OET Chief Edmond Thomas said his office is investigating broadband over powerline complaints, but none has been turned over to the Enforcement Bureau for action. One source concerned about interference had suggested that OET was essentially suppressing the complaints. Thomas denied that vehemently. “There have been many complaints,” he said: “On highly technical stuff OET basically does all the technical work in support of enforcement. We're going out and making measurements and we're going to understand the validity of those complaints. We haven’t ignored them. What we haven’t done is we haven’t answered the dozens of e-mails that we've gotten because there’s nothing we can say other than the fact that we're going to take them seriously.” Thomas said OET’s relationship with the Enforcement Bureau relationship is similar to that between a district attorney and investigators. “The district attorney investigates the complaint. He doesn’t put it on the bulletin board… Based on the results of the measurements, if we deem it appropriate, we'll respond and we're doing it in conjunction with the Enforcement Bureau.”

--

Salim Hanna of Canada, chmn. of ITU Task Group 1/8, told us Thurs. ultrawideband companies “with the exception of a few studies” have not submitted sufficient materials to the group to demonstrate that “UWB may co-exist with other radiocommunication services… It would appear that the UWB industry is more focused on the development of standards within IEEE.” Asked which issues are most difficult, he replied: “All of our tasks are challenging and difficult to get a consensus. I guess the UWB compatibility issues and the spectrum management framework are the most difficult.” Hanna confirmed that the group will need to hold a 5th meeting some time next year. One more meeting of the task group is scheduled for fall in Geneva. Hanna noted the workload of the group is heavy as it looks at more than 100 studies submitted leading up to the meeting, which started Wed. UWB “introduction brings many challenges to the national and international radio regulators,” he said. “There are also concerns from spectrum users about potential harmful interference. Task Group 1/8 is studying UWB compatibility with all radiocommunication services; thus there is a large number of input documents on compatibility issues. Although there are different views on UWB issues among attendees of this meeting, the outcome of Task Group 1/8 will be reached by consensus. Therefore this meeting and future meetings will have to work very hard on all issues on the table.”