DoJ Raises National Security In Air-To-Ground Proceeding

The FCC should affirm that affected wireless carriers must comply with CALEA requirements with respect both to terrestrial and to air-to-ground communications carried on their networks, DoJ said. The Commission requires carriers to “promptly” comply with law enforcement requests to intercept wire and electronic communication, but CALEA doesn’t say how quickly carriers must comply. In the context of an air-to-ground intercept, the DoJ said, the Commission should define “promptly” as “forthwith, but in no circumstances more than 10 minutes.” The Commission also should require that any wireless telecom capability to or from an aircraft operating in U.S. airspace use mobile switching centers (MSCs)located within U.S. borders.

To help law enforcement deal with possible attacks coordinated using wireless devices, DoJ said, the Commission should require all wireless/air-to-ground carriers and picocell providers to: (1) Record and maintain at a central land-based storage facility within the U.S., at minimum, non-content records of all calls to and from wireless phones aboard aircraft operating in U.S. air space, international air space contiguous to U.S. air space, and international air space used en route to or from U.S. destinations. (2) Provide law enforcement with “immediate” access to such records upon request.

DoJ said carriers and picocell providers also should be able to: (1) Locate a cellphone user on an aircraft with communication in progress. (2) Identify all cellphone users on an aircraft communicating with users aboard another aircraft serviced by the same or an associated provider. (3) Interrupt a communication. (4) Conference law enforcement to a communication. (5) Redirect all communications to and from a given aircraft. (6) On a given aircraft, terminate all cellphone users’ ability to send or receive communication, except for authorized personnel. (7) Enable transmission of emergency law enforcement information to airborne and terrestrial resources. (8) Reserve bandwidth to support emergency communication transmission to and from aircraft security elements. (9) Assure technology used is compatible with the Wireless Priority Service.

The DoJ also urged the FCC to adopt mechanisms to mitigate risk that radio-controlled improvised explosive devices could be triggered thanks to “reliable” connectivity with an aircraft. The Commission, in consultation with the airlines, also should write rules for in-flight cellphone use to prevent “air rage incidents,” DoJ said.

Boeing supported the FCC proposal to relax or lift the ban on cellphone use in-flight. The company has been gathering data on use of airborne picocell technologies aboard aircraft during flight to assess interference (CD April 6 p10). “The potential for interference from airborne picocell operations to terrestrial wireless systems is slim,” Boeing said. However, “appropriate technical standards and operational requirements” for provision of airborne wireless services still are needed, it said. In a worst case scenario, Boeing said, the FCC should allow aggregate airborne picocell system emissions to raise the noise floor experienced by terrestrial wireless networks no more than 1 dB. But, the company said, “the potential impact of airborne picocell system operations will be significantly less than this worst-case value.”

Use of the 800 MHz band and other CMRS spectrum for off-board communication links would “complicate the interference environment and substantially increase the potential for interference” with terrestrial wireless networks, Boeing said. At a minimum, it said, the Commission should postpone broader consideration of potential CMRS spectrum use for off-board links to a later date, and for now, temporarily freeze further use of CMRS spectrum for this purpose.

Boeing said the Commission should adopt rules that: (1) Let any entity technically capable of providing airborne wireless services do so on an unlicensed basis. Existing CMRS licensees shouldn’t have the exclusive right to provide such services, it said. (2) Let each airline or aircraft operator picks its airborne wireless service provider. (3) Do not require airborne wireless service providers to implement picocell systems compatible with all technologies and CMRS spectrum bands: “Market forces should be relied on to ensure widespread compatibility of airborne picocell systems with passengers’ wireless equipment.” (4) Create mechanisms to resolve “any complaints in the unlikely event of interference” and ensure that interfering operations are stopped pending resolution.

Picocell technology “greatly minimizes the risk of harmful interference” not only to terrestrial wireless networks but also with aviation communication and navigation systems, Telenor and ARINC said, adding they speak “from experience.” The companies completed testing of GSM handsets linked to an onboard picocell and communicating outside an aircraft via the existing onboard Inmarsat satellite communications system. Mobile Satellite Ventures and Globalstar supported the Commission proposal, urging the agency to: (1) Facilitate use of satellites as the air-ground link from an airborne picocell. (2) Let MSS handsets operating in terrestrial mode be used on aircraft.

“The test results to date show that the use of mobile phones and other transmitting devices on a plane via an onboard CDMA picocell will result in some level on interference… to the terrestrial networks,” Qualcomm said: “The interference threat is greater when considering other wireless technologies that do not have the minimum output power floor of CDMA based devices.” Qualcomm, a member of RTCA assisting the FAA in developing guidance on use of portable electronic devices (PEDs) and transmitting PEDs (T-PEDs) onboard aircraft, has completed initial research using CDMA technology as the baseline cabin service. Qualcomm, which now evaluates dual technology services using GSM and CDMA technology, said it hasn’t tested use of cellular radio spectrum for the air- to-ground link the FCC is considering, but said it believes the interference in that case would be “significant.”

Motorola warned the Commission not to adopt out-of- band and spurious emission limits on handsets that exceed those in current industry standards: “Significant modification to existing limits would negatively impact the manufacture and design of handsets by potentially adding increased costs and complexity.” Motorola and many others said if the Commission adopts a framework for airborne use of cellphones, it should extend those rules to cover all relevant commercial wireless technologies, including cellular (Part 22), broadband PCS (Part 24) and iDEN/SMR (Part 90).

Ericsson said it “strongly supports” replacing or relaxing the ban. It said the FCC should eliminate its Part 22 prohibiting the use of 800 MHz cellphones while airborne and modify its Parts 24 (PCS) and 27 (Wireless Commercial Services) rules to adopt “an appropriate framework for airborne provision of these services consistent with technical and business considerations.” Ericsson said any proposal adopted should be “technology- neutral.” The FCC shouldn’t limit its interference solution to pico technology, but rather “allow market forces to respond to consumer demands more freely,” Ericsson said.

Cingular and Verizon Wireless urged the FCC to give CMRS licensees exclusive rights to provide airborne service on their licensed spectrum within their service area. The Commission’s proposal to authorize all cellular carriers to provide such service everywhere is “a prescription for chaos that will not allow service to develop in accordance with market forces,” the firms said in joint comments. Also, licensing new providers or allowing service to be provided on an unlicensed basis would lead to “uncoordinated and uncontrolled radio transmissions that will inevitably degrade terrestrial communications,” they said. CMRS licensees are “best positioned” to address in-flight picocell service challenges, and should have flexibility to offer service aboard aircraft via picocells based on coordination with affected licensees, the companies said.

Picocell architecture theory is “promising,” Sprint said, but before picocell systems can be authorized major technical and operational issues must be addressed. For example, it said all air interface technologies must be supported by picocell to avoid interference. Sprint said the 0 dBm power limit proposed for plane-based handset operations could cause harmful interference with terrestrial networks, so in-depth studies of interference problems are needed.

As expected, the Assn. of Flight Attendants-CWA urged the FCC to keep the ban to protect public safety and passenger privacy. Along with the National Consumers League, AFA has gathered data showing that 63% of participants back the in-flight cellphone ban, with only 21% urging it be lifted (CD April 8 p2). Separately, Telecom for the Deaf and the Deaf & Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network said if the FCC implements picocell technology, picocells should be required to accommodate hearing aid compatible handsets.