TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY............................................................ 2
DISCUSSION ...........................................................4
I. Introduction............................................. 4
II. Continued Success of Spread Spectrum Point-to-Point
Links in the 5.8 GHz Band Remains in the Public Interest.. 4
III. Reliable Band Sharing Operations Must be the Goal Among
Part 15 Spread Spectrum and NII/SUPERNet Devices at 5.8
GHz in Order to Maximize Public Benefits; the Proposed
Technical Requirements of Section 15.407 are Incomplete
and do not Achieve This Goal and the Requirements of
Section 15.411 Conflict with Part 15 Spread Spectrum
Operations............................................... 5
IV. Any Proposal to Adopt a "Part 16" Regulatory Scheme
Must Explicitly Include Part 15 Spread Spectrum Devices
and Services ........................................... 10
V. Part 15 Companies Already Furnish Longer Range
Unlicensed Communications Links to Meet NII/SUPERNet
Community Networking Requirements; Commentors Cannot
Neglect the Responsibilities for Sound Professional
Communications Path Engineering Practices for
Establishing Such Links ................................ 10
VI. Unlicensed Community Networking is a Reality Now; The
Commission's Decision Not to Accommodate Higher Power
Longer range Communications at This Time is Appropriate
Because of the Broad Range of Alternatives in the
Marketplace ............................................ 13
VII. In This Proceeding, Interim Rules Would be
Anticompetitive to Small Businesses and Place Early
Customers at Risks of Obsolescence ..................... 17
VIII. Conclusion .......................................... 18
Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
_________________________________________
In the Matter of )
)
Amendment of the Commission's Rules to ) ET Docket No. 96-102
Provide for Unlicensed NII/SUPERNet ) RM-8648
Operations in the 5 GHz Frequency Range ) RM-8653
_________________________________________)
To: The Commission
REPLY COMMENTS OF CYLINK CORPORATION
Burton G. Tregub
Vice President, Strategic Programs
Cylink Corporation
910 Hermosa Court
Sunnyvale, CA. 94086
408.735.6667
August 13, 1996
SUMMARY
Cylink Corporation ("Cylink"), pursuant to the Federal Communications
Commission's ("FCC" or "Commission") rules hereby submits its reply
comments to the above captioned Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Cylink
joins with most of the commentors in endorsing the changes proposed in
this Notice for unlicensed low power short-range NII/SUPERNet operations
in the 5.15 - 5.35 GHz band. Cylink also notes that many complex issues
and contradicting proposals have been presented in the comments in this
proceeding. Considerations for successful NII/SUPERNet operations in
the lower band (5.15 - 5.35 GHz) are contrasted with the many
difficulties of similar operations in the ISM upper band (5.725 -
5.875GHz) where a wide variety of high power amateur radio services and
spread spectrum communications devices are currently active and ISM
power emission limits and communications etiquette rules are not
currently applicable. The comments also identify the regulatory
policy[1]and technical complexities[2] of band sharing between low power
short range high data rate services and longer range high data rate
community networks.
Although informal assumptions and propositions, often conflicting, have
been advanced, no commentor has offered any kind of data to prove with
reasonable confidence that a technical and administrative solution can
be developed and accommodated in the upper band between NII/SUPERNet
devices and Part 15 spread- spectrum, ISM and amateur radio operations.
Many commentors have expressed severe concerns about the difficulties of
providing reliable disparate services with band sharing[3] at 5.8 GHz.
Cylink will participate in industry band-sharing development activities
and continues to strongly urge detailed technical analysis, measurement
criteria and demonstration testing in the 5.725 - 5.875 GHz band to
determine, as TIA[4] has also recommended, if technical specifications
and minimal regulations necessary to ensure successful sharing and
low-burden administrative self-policing are attainable. Cylink
therefore specifically opposes any interim rules and specifications,
particularly those posed by WINForum regarding possible interim
deployments in 50 MHZ of the upper band.
In view of other actions before the Commission[5] related to alternate
spectrum resources available for NII/SUPERNet applications, it is
evident that unencumbered spectrum significantly larger that the 150 MHZ
in the upper band can be made available for NII/SUPERNet services, if
co-sharing is not deemed possible in the 5.8 GHz band. Deployment of
such services as 25 Mbps ATM are not expected to capture significant
market presence before 1998[6]. This is consistent with timing of
deployment of the technologies stimulated for use under the other
Commission actions, and eventual growing occupancy of the 200 MHZ of the
lower spectrum should provide proof and motivation for investment and
deployment in these alternate technologies and devices[7].
Cylink also joins with many of the commentors, e.g., Pacific Telesis
Group, TIA, AT&T Corp., ARRL, and Bell Atlantic, in supporting the
position of the Commission in refusing to propose accommodating the
higher power longer range communications links sought by the petitioners
at this time. Cylink believes that the FCC's implementation of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, effective subsequent to the petitioners'
submissions, provides a vigorous competitive environment for community
networking solutions, with diverse technologies and providers. This
will change the telecommunications landscape and obsolete many of the
assumptions about lack of economic competitive services and devices in
many spectrum bands for both unlicensed and licensed operations.
The Telecommunications Act will stimulate a great diversity of grades
and qualities of community networking services through new devices and
carrier and private facilities. The NII/SUPERNet Proceeding itself
provides a powerful market-driven engine to force this change, and the
Commission has wisely provided the opportunity for the Act to take
effect.
DISCUSSION
I. Introduction
As one of the country's leading suppliers of spread spectrum technology
for outdoor communications, Cylink has extensive experience in the
development and deployment of point-to-point high data rate links in the
2.4 and 5.8 GHz bands for unlicensed operations in community, carrier
utility, and private commercial network applications. These links
currently provide wideband communications facilities for schools, public
safety and health care institutions and businesses.
The spread spectrum devices produced by Cylink and other Part 15
suppliers, provide for any entity, now in 1996 and for the foreseeable
future, immediate economically deployable longer range NII access and
connectivity facilities desired by many of the commentors in this
proceeding. In order to continue successful provisioning of these
communications facilities and devices, and efficiently meet a variety of
publicly beneficial needs, these reply comments primarily address
proposed NII/SUPERNet operations in the 5.8 GHz band.
II. Continued Success of Spread Spectrum Point-to-Point Links in the
5.8 GHz Band Remains in the Public Interest.
The market demands for and public benefits of medium and longer range
(up to 30 miles) outdoor spread spectrum communications, operating under
Part 15 rules, have been previously documented in ET Docket No.
96-08[8] and in this proceeding.[9] Rapid deployment and taking
advantage of spread-spectrum's interference resistant technology allows
efficient re-use of precious spectrum resources through sharing by many
users in the same community. This enables the type of connectivity
consistent with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in encouraging the
ready availability of advanced telecommunications capabilities to all
Americans including, in particular, schools, libraries and health care
facilities.
The FCC has confirmed that unlicensed spread spectrum radio technology
can help extend universal service and serve as a low- cost,
high-bandwidth on-ramp to the NII Information Superhighway. The
Commission recently observed that "Part 15 devices provide a variety of
consumer and business oriented services that benefit individuals,
commercial services, and private spectrum users and --- . . have
applications for public safety and medical needs."[10] Spread-spectrum
devices are also used for cross-county community and business
communications, Intelligent Transportation System applications, rural
telephone services and emergency restoration services.
Comments in this proceeding recognize the complexity of the issues in
sharing the spectrum resources among the different technologies and
etiquettes provided and applications served within the 5.8 GHz band,
which could result in ultimately rendering the band useless or burdened
with uncertainties from the reliability and administrative perspectives
of providing any service. Conflicts associated with compatibility and
interim rules could well result in another range of delays and
administrative burdens akin to the procedures in the LMS Services PR
Docket 93-61.
III. Reliable Band Sharing Operations Must be the Goal Among Part 15
Spread Spectrum and NII/SUPERNet Devices at 5.8 GHz in Order to Maximize
Public Benefits; the Proposed Technical Requirements of Section 15.407
are Incomplete and do not Achieve This Goal and the Requirements of
Section 15.411 Conflict with Part 15 Spread Spectrum Operations.
A. Band Sharing Interference Considerations at 5.8 GHz.
There is a general consensus among commentors and the Commission that
spread spectrum devices operating in the 5.8 GHz band have provided and
will continue to provide valuable public benefits and that if
NII/SUPERNet devices are authorized in this band, they:
Must not impose additional restrictions nor require any new
limitations on Part 15 spread spectrum devices operating in this
band either now or in the future, and
Must not cause objectional or harmful performance-disabling
interference into existing and future spread spectrum devices
operating in this band to any greater degree than other Part 15
spread spectrum devices.
Cylink vigorously supports these basic band sharing tenets in order to
protect and further the public benefits achieved through the investments
made by Cylink and other members of the Part 15 community based on the
technical regulations established and encouraged by the Commission.
WINForum recommends[11] that the most technology-neutral criteria for
band sharing appears to be power spectral density and urges adoption of
rules consistent with whatever limits are adopted in ET Docket 96-08.
Motorola[12] also suggests the specifying of power spectral density
(PSD) as the defining technique for controlling and measuring
interference among multiple non- interoperable systems. However, their
examples, even correcting for normalization of antenna gain to measure
PSD as a function of transmitter output power, are oversimplified and
incomplete.
Any effective solution for sharing the 5.8 GHz band must take into
account the specifics of PSD measurement criteria and of the
time-variant and binary data-sequence structure dependencies of
NII/SUPERNet non-spread spectrum modulation technologies. Unlike
spread-spectrum devices, field-experience of the "peakiness" of the
operational emissions spectrum will be radically different than
laboratory testing unless a broad range of data sequences are measured
over sufficient periods of time to represent true environments. This
testing requires a large sampling of data sequences that, based on the
modulation techniques employed, can combine to produce large spikes from
data dependent sequences.
As many of the commentors previously referenced have noted, identifying
interference parameter constraints to design proper systems requires
analyses, testing and demonstration; it is not subject to theoretical
arguments alone. Unless this is performed and agreed upon through
expert peer reviews, the public will be the losers in an environment
with uncertain interference predictability and unreliable performance.
Northern Telcom Inc. ("Nortel") proposes that[13] NII/SUPERNet devices
in the 5.8 GHz band be permitted an EIRP of up to one watt, subject to
limitations of Part 15.407 (d) in order to ensure non-interference to
licensed devices (emphasis added) in order that NII/SUPERNet devices are
compatible with other authorized services (emphasis added) in this band.
Cylink suggests that this definition implicitly excludes considerations
of harmful or objectionable interference to Part 15 spread spectrum
devices which are neither licensed or formally defined as an "authorized
service" by FCC statute, and adamantly opposes Nortel's proposals for
incorporation into interim or final rules.
Comments by several other parties[14] do not take into account the
spectrum signature differences between spread spectrum and non-spread
spectrum devices. Cylink has presented the requirements [15] that
spread-spectrum signals provide a certain amount of randomness in the
signal structure achieved partially by the fact that the transmitted
power is spread, utilizing a pseudo-noise code, into a bandwidth at
least ten times that which would be required if spread spectrum
modulation were not used. This results in very few spectral components
within a smooth spectral mask and is one of the major reasons why
multiple signals can co-exist within the same band and geographic area.
Non-spread spectrum emitters, regardless of whether or not used for
NII/SUPERNet applications, have spectral signatures that exhibit strong
binary data-sequence dependent spectral components that can vary over
time with a much greater potential for harmful interference with other
like emitters and to Part 15 spread spectrum devices.
This is apparently identified by Nortel[16] in recognizing the need to
change the Commission's proposed specification for defining power
spectral density in Section 15.407(a) relative to the limitation of PSD
to 0.03 milliwatts in any 3 kHz bandwidth. Nortel further acknowledges
the difference in smoothness between spread spectrum and data-dependent
spectral characteristics of non-spread spectrum emission characteristics
in their statement that ... "For devices with a bandwidth of 25 MHZ,
this would require the emission to be flat across the channel to within
3 dB. Nortel's experience has been that this is not practical to
achieve for all conditions of modulation. Nortel thus suggests that the
proposed spectral density limit be increased to 0.06 milliwatts per 3
kHz to provide an additional 3 dB of margin."
This recognition reflects the absolute necessity for performing detailed
analyses, testing and demonstrations of differing technologies,
etiquettes, using common measurement principles, before compatible
co-sharing of the 5.8 GHz upper band can be ensured to provide reliable
public services for the mix of applications facilitated by Part 15
spread spectrum and NII/SUPERNet non-spread spectrum services.
B. Shortcomings Exist in Technical Requirements Section
15.407(a) for Band Sharing Between Part 15 Spread Spectrum and
Non-Spread Spectrum Devices at 5.8 GHz.
Any technical specification for sharing among non-spread spectrum and
spread spectrum emitters must take into account the techniques by which
transmitted power density measurements are taken as specified by FCC
Section 15.247(d). The proposed Section 15.407(a) omits a very
essential measurement characteristic which must be included. Section
15.247(d) defines that the measurement of transmitted power spectral
density is to be "averaged over any 1 second interval." This time frame
is to capture repetitive sequences of the pseudo-noise spreading code
used to modulate the data structure. Since a non-spread spectrum
modulation emission signature is data-structure dependent, a time
interval for ensuring compliance with the intent of the measurement
technique must be included in any final technical requirement Section.
This time interval will have to include an appropriate large sampling of
binary data sequences to develop a full range of spectral emission
signatures.
In order to establish whether economical and compliant equipment for
NII/SUPERNet can be developed and manufactured to attain band sharing
with existing Part 15 devices and services, all developers and
manufacturers of NII/SUPERNet devices must also conform to the PSD
measurement techniques established by the Commission. Such a
requirement does not exist in the lower band of 5.15 - 5.35 GHz. The
FCC's position on appropriate measurement methods for determining
compliance with the power spectral density requirements of Section
15.247 of the Commission's Rules are reenforced in a March 25, 1993
letter from David L. Means, Chief, Engineering Evaluation Branch to Dr.
Jim Omura, Chairman, Cylink. This letter states:
"Review of the record in the rule making that established
the power spectral density standard, General Docket 89-354,
reveals the Commission's actual intent. Paragraph 12 of the
Report and Order in this proceeding states:
...We find that a power spectral density standard based
on 1 watt spread over the minimum permitted bandwidth of 500 kHz
is an appropriate solution. This standard will specify that the
maximum allowed power spectral density is 8 dBm in any 3 kHz
bandwidth. ...
"The actual calculation that produced the specified value of
8 dBm is as follows:
1 W (peak)/500 kHz/3kHz) = 0.006W (peak) = 7.78 dBm
(rounded to 8 dBm).
"It is clear from the above that, since the maximum power
output of the transmitter is specified by Section 15.247 (b) as 1
Watt peak power, the value measured in the 3 kHz bandwidth must
also be peak. The 1 second measurement observation period was
chosen as a value that reasonably assured capture of recurring
peaks, while not being so long as to create an unreasonable
measurement burden.
"This interpretation of the Commission's intent has been
constantly applied since the standard was implemented on August
24, 1990. While we remain flexible regarding the measurement
procedure and equipment, we must insist that whatever is used
yields a peak power measurement." (Emphasis added).
Therefore, Cylink proposes that any general technical requirement which
defines the quantification and measurement technique of power spectral
density for NII/SUPERNet devices in the 5.725 - 5.875 GHz band must, by
regulation, include the definitions presented above. Cylink
consequently opposes the suggested language by the Commission for
Section 15.407(a) as incomplete based on current regulations and
policies set for developers of Part 15 devices.
C. Shortcomings Exist in Technical Requirements Section
15.411 for Band Sharing Between Part 15 Spread Spectrum and Non-
Spread Spectrum Devices at 5.8 GHz.
There are many contradictory proposals for spectrum etiquette and
protocols offered by the commentors in this proceeding; citing them
would take a page full of footnotes. Obviously, resolving these
conflicts, either through channelization plans, compromise, elimination
of services, or some other means, will be a major challenge for the
industry working group. As a single reference, one proposal[17] would
prohibit continuous point-to-point communications at all, and
particularly full duplex as is common commercial and network practice.
This would preclude many Cylink customers, and those of other Part 15
manufacturers, from serving such current applications as telephone
trunking for rural and farm communities, videoconferencing for schools,
public service, Intelligent Transportation Systems and health care
facilities, and other business or community multimedia networking
applications.
The problems of establishing compatible frameworks for circuit- switched
networks and packet-switched communications are at the heart of these
etiquette issues. When combined with the inability to eliminate amateur
radio communications or new non- communications Part 18 ISM devices
which are not limited in power or continuity of transmission, the band
sharing problem at 5.8 GHz may not be tractable. Hence, while Section
15.411 may be a basis for compromise in the lower 5.15 - 5.35 GHz band,
it does not address the complete set of concurrent emitters that can
exist in a 5.8 GHz environment.
It will have to be determined through the industry technical
specification development process whether such requirements and
constraints can lead to workable NII/SUPERNet systems in the 5.8 GHZ
band. There is common motivation to find such a solution among the
variety of technologies and services operational at 5.8 GHz. The
ability to efficiently share this spectrum without changing any of the
Section 15.247 or 15.249 rules or degrading or interrupting current Part
15 spread spectrum devices and negatively effecting operations would
clearly result in similar satisfactory operations in the 5.15 - 5.35 GHz
band. This could stimulate the submission of a Petition for Rulemaking
for Part 15 spread spectrum operations within this lower band by Cylink
and other Part 15 suppliers and customers, to expand wideband spread
spectrum facilities by an additional 200 MHZ, significantly increasing
capacities for additional unlicensed longer range NII/SUPERNet and
outdoor community networking applications.
IV. Any Proposal to Adopt a "Part 16" Regulatory Scheme Must
Explicitly Include Part 15 Spread Spectrum Devices and Services.
While several commentors have suggested adopting the Apple proposal for
an unlicensed "Part 16" regulatory regime for the NII/SUPERNet service,
it is unclear from Nortel's comments[18] as to whether or not Part 15
spread spectrum devices are included in their proposal for co-primary
status with other licensed services. Nortel raises the concern that
without such a protected status, users would be subject to interference
by other licensed services and compromise the reliability for
NII/SUPERNet communications.
Cylink cites this as another acknowledged example of the dangers fraught
by use of the 5.8 GHz band for NII/SUPERNet services. The upper band of
5.8 GHz is basically inhospitable for many of the services contemplated
by the petitioners, and band sharing expectations are based upon sets of
wholly unproven assumptions relating to technologies, regulations and
future investments in ISM devices which are not under the total control
of either the Commission or the specific petitioners. However, if the
Commission does establish a Part 16 regulatory regime, it must include
Part 15 spread spectrum devices and services in order to maintain
equitable band sharing to maximize public benefits being received by
current and future users of spread spectrum facilities. Placing Part 15
devices secondary to NII/SUPERNet would be counter to all commitments
and pronouncements which have resulted from the successes that Part 15
facilities have enjoyed in the marketplace.
V. Part 15 Companies Already Furnish Longer Range Unlicensed
Communications Links to Meet NII/SUPERNet Community Networking
Requirements; Commentors Cannot Neglect the Responsibilities for
Sound Professional Communications Path Engineering Practices for
Establishing Such Links.
Cylink and other Part 15 suppliers and their distributors and customers
are well versed in the deployment of longer range outdoor communications
facilities such as might be employed in unlicensed long distance
wireless access[19] or community networks for NII/SUPERNet users. The
benefits and experiences have already been cited by many commentors and
are documented in the proceedings for ET Docket 96-08 as well as in this
proceeding[20]. Currently available products provide E-1/T-1and
fractional rates from 2.048 Mbps to 64 Kbps for distances of
approximately 30 miles; Internet and NII infrastructures to accept
greater rates are not projected to exist for several years, by which
time newer services and spectrums will be available through actions
taken in other dockets described previously in this Notice[21].
Typical LAN segment interconnections between campuses or businesses
generally require fractional T-1 rates at best, based on Cylink's and
other vendors' experiences with wireless LAN bridges. Even newly
designed LAN based videoconferencing services are designed to operate at
ISDN basic rates, well below the capacity of Part 15 outdoor longer
range spread spectrum wireless links. Hence, Part 15 unlicensed spread
spectrum facilities, available today, reduce any urgency in developing
new technology regulations to accommodate immediate NII/SUPERNet needs
for longer range communications.
However, the unlicensed nature of these links should not be confused
with the professional care required to install such facilities. Several
commentors[22] seem to imply that newly defined unlicensed NII/SUPERNet
outdoor communications facilities, either longer range or short
distance, will be superior in providing new ease of access as consumer
installable and maintainable products, rather than products that provide
consumers with communications facilities. This is not a factual
incentive or potential new public benefit, and should not be a
motivating premise for either the Commission or the potential users of
such services.
The fact that the majority of the links envisioned in an NII/SUPERNet
environment are unlicensed does not mean that outdoor communications
devices can be consumer installed. Indeed, professional installation is
generally required and prudent in order to achieve reliable operations
and to knowledgeably practice spectrum ecology through the use of
minimum transmitter power and antenna beamwidth necessary to establish
reliable connectivity.
Fixed point-to-point unlicensed links still require a site analysis and
path survey to determine that the spectrum is clear of direct
interference and has a reasonable probability of remaining so. The link
must accept some interference from other intentional or unintentional
emitters, and a reliable line-of- sight must exist between one location
and another. It is extremely unlikely that one would expend the
resources for a comparatively long range point-to-point link, such as
would be used to connect campuses, without first determining that a
line- of-sight path actually exists and that there are no nearby sites
that would pose interference concerns. An installer would also assess
the likely radio noise environment at the site; steps of this kind are
necessary in order to guard against an improvident decision to invest
and install a link of doubtful utility because of a questionable
interference environment.
This concern is more manifest in the NII/SUPERNet environment because of
the mobility and informality with which wireless LANs and short outdoor
links may be supported. Wireless LAN configurations, essentially
unrestricted in location, may be installed next to windows or open areas
where omnidirectional or poorly aligned directional antennas can spew
emissions into the local environments well outside of the targeted
recipients and thus poison the local geography for other communications.
The movement of indoor petitions, for example, can lead to narrow beam
directional gain signals, meant for indoor communications of 40 meters,
causing co-channel interference with other communications facilities in
adjacent areas or buildings.
Absent a metric for outdoor field strength determination as a
self-policing measure by an interfered party, a non-intelligent wireless
LAN system can cause a chaotic electromagnetic environment. Cylink is
also concerned that, given the informality of installation processes for
wireless LANs, an unpoliced aftermarket could emerge whereby devices
designed for higher power longer range communications could be adapted
and affixed to indoor LAN products. This scenario could be avoided by
avoiding the use of the higher power interoperable non-spread spectrum
NII/SUPERNet devices at the 5.8 GHz band.
Similarly, an outdoor short-range building-to-building link without
professional installation can cause unnecessary harmful interference to
a broad area through improper antenna directionality or beam pattern,
excess transmitter power above that which is needed to establish a
reliable link margin, or as a result of the lack of instrumented path
engineering. Cylink suggests that the members of this proceeding not
confuse the public between the ease of access provided by unlicensed
spread spectrum and NII/SUPERNet operations, and the professional
efforts and expenses required to benefit an entire set of users in a
common geographic area or community through planning and engineering of
both indoor and outdoor services.
While professionally engineered ad-hoc installations of spread spectrum
technology generally succeed, non-spread-spectrum technologies require
even more thorough path engineering and robust carrier-to interference
environments to protect against co- channel or adjacent channel
interference. Because frequency coordination is not required in
unlicensed operations, risks of investment are much greater in achieving
long term reliability for non-spread-spectrum devices with multiple
point-to-point links sharing the same geography and spectrum. Thus, the
successful experience enjoyed by spread spectrum customers will not
directly translate to unlicensed ad-hoc non-spread spectrum link
topologies.
VI. Unlicensed Community Networking is a Reality Now; The Commission's
Decision Not to Accommodate Higher Power Longer range Communications at
This Time is Appropriate Because of the Broad Range of Alternatives in
the Marketplace.
A. The Concept of Unlicensed Longer Range Community
Networks is Already a Reality with the Choices Owned by the
Public, not the Suppliers.
The Commission finds merit in the concept of longer range community
networks, broadly defined as capable of carrying high data rate
communications for distances of 10 - 15 km or more. Cylink asserts that
such facilities are available now and that new spectrum and competitive
regulatory actions will rapidly develop a host of alternatives from
which consumers, not vendors, will choose the winners. It would not
serve the public well to identify only one particular architectural
concept as "the" definition of such longer range community networks.
Thus, while there are substantial issues concerning the Apple proposal
for accommodating such networks, flaws in the Apple presentation should
not tarnish alternative implementations which have more promise and less
risk to the low power short range NII/SUPERNet services and to the Part
15 spread spectrum devices already in service in the upper 5.8 GHz band.
Apple's comments represent that "With respect specifically to longer
reach "community networks," the Commission has overemphasized the risk
of harmful interference..."[23] and Apple states that "community
networks have been tarred with the false and misleading label of "high
power" and somehow differentiated from other applications allowed the
same power."[24]
Cylink, as a leading supplier to community network applications today,
is obviously a broad supporter of such networks, but asserts that
Apple's own specific definition and implementation plan for such
networks is flawed. Facilities and devices for unlicensed private
community networks exist today, and as communications "pipes," do not
have to be cast in the single image of one vendor. Rather, they are
provided through a vigorous competitive mix of offerings. Consumers of
networking services interface with facilities through standardized high
speed data communications ports and are interested in the physical
connections and the performance of the link relative to quality, grade,
economics and availability of service. The underlying system components
can be fungible; the consumers buy the benefits of communications, not
the technologies.
Apple is factually incorrect when they claim[25] that "traditional fixed
microwave networks licensed under Part 94 of the Commission's rules are
orders of magnitude more expensive than unlicensed links..." The costs
of any outdoor communications link are system costs, inclusive of cable
run construction, site preparation, professional communications path
engineering[26], antenna and tower construction, and perhaps real estate
leasing costs for rooftop space. The cost of the transceivers are only
a portion of the total costs. The advantages of spread spectrum
technology are more permanent in the strength and adaptability of the
technology to inherently tolerate communications energy interference,
sustain reliable services in multipath environments, lessen
administrative delays, and provide effective spectrum reuse and low
maintainability costs through other attributes unique to the
characteristics of spread-spectrum.
Many reservations have been presented concerning Apple's specific
implementation plans. Specifically, the ARRL[27] states that
"...non-spread spectrum devices, with no bandwidth limitations, at
significant power and antenna gain, operating over the 15 km paths that
Apple envisions, are not compatible with co-channel amateur operations."
Cylink believes that Apple has not provided any additional technical
data to support its assumptions of effective band sharing in the 5.8 GHz
spectrum, first presented in its Petition for Rule Making , RM-8653, to
which the ARRL responds[28] in part: "...and there is no showing of
compatibility between the so-called "NII" (National Information
Infrastructure) band allocation proposed by Apple, and existing
Government and non-government users (including Part 15, Part 18 and Part
97 users). The petition is rife with glowing predictions of universal
access by the public for whatever communications purposes are desired,
but it contains no real information about the possibility of
coordination of use between and among unlicensed users in the bands, or
coordination between and among inter-service users."
Cylink believes that the risk of compromising the effective services of
Part 15 spread-spectrum devices already in the 5.8 GHz band providing
unlicensed longer range communications is totally unwarranted. As
pointed out by the Wireless Field Test for Educations Project[29]
..."Since radios operating under Part 15.247, in 125 MHZ of bandwidth at
1 watt are capable of providing such shared spectrum service at ranges
at least as far as the Apple Computer proposed 15 km, without any new
service such as Apple Computer's proposed service, further rulemaking by
the FCC should not encourage degradation of that existing capability."
Likewise, Cylink asserts that the full utility of NII/SUPERNet LANS is
not limited if Apple's specific implementation plan is denied; rather,
community networking is an application served by the whole
telecommunications industry with a variety of
implementations---unlicensed and licensed wireless, wire, cable--
-through a myriad of different competitive technology products and
services expanded by the FCC's actions under the Telecommunications Act
of 1996. The FCC, through various current proceedings, has wisely set
the scenario for market forces to develop multiple offerings for
unlicensed and licensed communications, and the success of the
NII/SUPERNet is not inextricably linked to the specifics of Apple's own
plan.
B. Cylink Supports the Commission's Decision not to
Accommodate the Higher Power Longer Range Communications Links in
this Proceeding.
In apparent contradiction to what the Commission reported in paragraph
47 of this Notice, the Commission should be complimented for already
taking action to expand the broad number of alternatives to provide both
unlicensed and licensed longer range communications for NII/SUPERNet
applications. In addition to the previously discussed capabilities of
Part 15 spread spectrum devices to meet current and near term
NII/SUPERNet applications for access and infrastructure communications,
Cylink believes that the FCC's implementation of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, effective subsequent to the petitioners' submissions,
provides a vigorous competitive environment for community networking
solutions, with diverse technologies and providers. This will change
the telecommunications landscape and obsolete many of the assumptions
about lack of economic competitive services and devices in many spectrum
bands for both unlicensed and licensed operations.
The Telecommunications Act will stimulate a great diversity of grades
and qualities of community networking services through new devices and
carrier and private facilities. The NII/SUPERNet proceeding itself
provides a powerful market-driven engine to force this change, and the
Commission has now wisely provided the opportunity for the Act to take
effect.
Cylink also suggests that the Commission already has before it, through
existing dockets addressing the same public users and uses of
NII/SUPERNet type services, a number of alternatives to the 5.725 -
5.850 GHz band for fixed point-to-point longer range outdoor wireless
communications. These can provide the services proposed in the Notice
without compromising the status quo quality of communications for the
public who currently benefit from Part 15 spread spectrum devices, nor
jeopardizing the millions of dollars of investment that have led to
American leadership in the global market for 5.8 GHz spread spectrum
devices.
Cylink suggests that integrating the collective objectives and spectrum
resources addressed within this Notice, and ET Docket 96- 8 (Amendment
of the Commission's Rules Regarding Spread Spectrum Transmitters) and ET
Docket 94-124 (Amendment of Parts 2 and 15 of the Commission's rules to
Permit Use of Radio Frequencies Above 40 GHZ for New Radio
Applications), in conjunction with the use of other existing spectrum
allocations will provide spectrum- efficient answers to long term
demands for the needs identified in this Notice. Similarly, in lieu of
introducing potentially interfering non-spread spectrum technologies in
the 5.8 GHz band for longer range outdoor community networking
communications for NII/SUPERNet applications, ET Docket No. 96-8 can
provide for the routine unlicensed authorization of outdoor
point-to-point links in the 2.4 GHz and the 5.8 GHz bands.
Other alternatives for outdoor communications have been identified in
the proceeding for ET Docket 94-124, as higher power medium-range or
last-mile components of any information superhighway. These
applications were particularly cited as of value in educational
institutions, with one commentor, "Educational Parties," proposing 1 GHz
allocation set-aside for educational and public service uses.
Finally, the commission has identified a range of potential spectrum
resources in paragraph 93 of the LMDS Report and Order[30] wherein it is
stated ... "However, the fact that all new FS applications files in
these (6 and 11 GHz) bands have been granted, suggests that there is
ample spectrum available to meet FS service demands. Moreover, for
short haul routes, there are assignments available in the 18, 23 and 39
GHz bands. These bands represent almost 8 GHz of spectrum for FS. In
addition, in ET Docket no 92-9, the Commission redesignated the 10 GHz
band for point-to-point microwave use, and in ET Docket No. 95-183, the
Commission proposed to provide another 1.6 GHz of FS spectrum in the
37.0-38.6 GHz band.....Given the capability of FS networks to make
effective and efficient reuse of spectrum, we conclude, based on the
current record, that sufficient spectrum is available to meet FS
requirements for the foreseeable future."
VII. In This Proceeding, Interim Rules Would be Anticompetitive
to Small Businesses and Place Early Customers at Risks of
Obsolescence.
Because of the complexities involved in this proceeding, both the public
and business would be ill-served by deployments of devices under interim
rules. The suggested procedures for analyses, testing and
demonstrations to verify the potential for band sharing at the 5.8 GHZ
band make it extremely unlikely that interim rules could be hastily
adopted. Since services to be adopted may differ between the lower band
of 5.15 - 5.35 GHz and the upper band of 5.725 - 5.875 GHz, and
channelization could well partition services into different bands and
performance levels, small manufacturers would be at substantial risk in
developing products for what may later turn out to be minor market
niches. Only larger companies could afford to cover their risks by
"betting" on the eventual outcomes of the industry working group
deliberations.
Likewise, the pubic could well be at risk through purchasing devices or
implementing services which did not become heavily supported by multiple
suppliers, because of later changes in band usage definitions and
service offerings. Cylink does not believe that solving
interoperability issues solves the problem, since obsolescence can be
more a function of where the major product developments take place to
provide the most cost-effective alternatives for the customers.
Therefore, Cylink agrees with the position of Hewlett-Packard[31] to
forego interim rules and have the Commission direct industry to develop
standards through a peer review consensus process within a fixed period.
VIII. Conclusion.
Cylink commends the Commission's efforts to expand the capabilities of
unlicensed devices to provide important new capabilities to the public.
Through the efforts involved in associated spectrum dockets, enactment
of the provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and the
specifics of the services envisioned for NII/SUPERNet applications, the
Commission can facilitate meeting the projected public needs across a
variety of competitive telecommunications solutions. With the important
modifications to the technical requirements outlined, and the
recommendations and clarifications described above and in Cylink's
initial comments, Cylink generally supports the rule changes proposed by
the Commission in the referenced Notice of Proposed Rule Making.
Respectfully submitted,
Cylink Corporation
By:
__________________________
Burton G. Tregub
Vice President, Strategic
Programs
910 Hermosa Court
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
408.735.6667
Dated: August 13, 1996
_______________________________
[1] TIA Comments at 6; AT&T Comments at 4.
[2] See Testimony of Peter Murray for UTAM, Inc. And the Wireless
Information Networks Forum, February 20, 1996, e.g."However,
WINForum's spectrum estimate did not take such networks into
consideration and community networks appear to require sufficient
different protocol, channelization, and access measures from the
on-premises, campus area, and local ad-hoc SUPERNet systems that
an allocation in a different band is needed."
[3] Comments of San Bernadino Microwave at 6; Comments of Western
Multiplex at 3; Comments of Cylink at 7; Comments of Pacific
Telesis Group at 4; Comments of Amateur Radio Relay League at 6.
[4] TIA Comments at 3
[5] ET Docket 96-8 (Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Spread
Spectrum Transmitters), ET Docket 94-124 (Amendment of Parts 2 and 15 of
the Commission's rules to Permit Use of Radio Frequencies Above 40 GHZ
for New Radio Applications) and CC Docket No. 92-297 (LMDS FIRST REPORT
AND ORDER)
[6] Network World, July 29,1996 at p.32
[7] Pacific Telesis Group Comments at 3.
[8] Cylink Comments at 2 - 8
[9] Cylink Comments at 5; Western Multiplex Corporation Comments at 2;
Metricom Comments at 2.
[10] Allocation of Spectrum Below 5 GHz Transferred from Federal
Government Use, 10 FCC Rcd 4769, 4786 (1995).
[11] WINForum Comments at 19.
[12] Motorola Comments at 9.
[13] Nortel Comments at 12 - 13
[14] e.g., Apple Comments at 8; Fundamental Research Corp. Comments at
2.
[15] Cylink Comments at 8.
[16] Nortel Comments at 13.
[17] Lace, Inc. Comments at 12.
[18] Nortel Comments at 13.
[19] Western Multiplex Comments at 2.
[20] Cylink Comments at 4.
[21] Cylink Comments at 3.
[22] Comments of Fundamental Research at 3; Comments of CEMA at 5;
Comments of Apple at 4.
[23] Apple Comments at I.
[24] Apple Comments at 8.
[25] Apple Comments at 5.
[26] id at 8.
[27] ARRL Comments at 8.
[28] ARRL Comments at 3.
[29] NSF Wireless Field Test Project Comments at 3.
[30] First Report and Order and Fourth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
CC Docket no. 92-297, Released July 22, 1996.
[31] Hewlett-Packard Comments at 4.