We have now finished reviewing the dismal (partial) list of historic FCC spectrum management engineering mistakes, and in this final part of the series we’ll look at some suggestions for how the FCC could, ideally, conduct this highly-important function. The Commission would never adopt any of these proposals, of course, but “even engineers can dream!”
As detailed earlier in this series, too many times the FCC regulators have dipped their pinkies into technology and have tried to force ‘regulated” spectrum management solutions which buck the well-known laws of physics. Their regulatory development process (at a general level) seems to operate as follows:
1. Especially under prodding from Congress and/or from specific entrepreneurs or regulated industries, promote development of a new spectrum-using technology by proposing an allocation of a slice of spectrum to accommodate the new systems.
2. After the public discussion and the submission of Comments has ended, ignore recommendations from well-qualified engineers and technical experts, both within the Commission and external to it, which are in full or partial opposition to the proposal as written.
3. Adopt the proposal by using administrative fiats that declare that the opposition’s technical findings are “of no merit” or, alternatively, by issuing their own “administrative fixes” to circumvent any identified problems.
4. After operations of the new technology are implemented, begin receiving complaints from established spectrum licensees/users that their existing operations are becoming affected by the new activities.
5. Transfer the burden of proof that damages have indeed occurred entirely to the complaining parties, while retaining the option for the Commission administratively to dismiss the complaints because of “non-proof” of the claims (at least to the Commission’s satisfaction!) or because of the demonstrated narrow “technical compliance” by the newly established systems with “existing Rules.” This then leaves the federal judicial system as the only remaining remedy for redress of damages, again at the injured licensees’ own expense.
6. Finally, if matters cannot be resolved in any other easy way, propose an ad-hoc “administrative settlement” together with modified Rules which solve few of the FCC-created problems, leaves no party satisfied, but provides an easy way for the FCC to exit gracefully.
FCC Spectrum Management Universe
The FCC’s historical record in spectrum management is one of repeated poor-to-disastrous engineering decisions, punctuated with occasional successes (for example, the Personal Communications Service [PCS]). Too much at the FCC has gone too badly wrong for too long a period of time for this level of poor agency performance to be dismissed or to be labeled as “unimportant.” Their cumulative record is equivalent to leaving Apollo 11 motionless on the launch pad, rather than on its way to a first lunar landing. At the bottom of it all, this record is one of failure!
The Curmudgeon is an informed citizen who is angry about the quality of regulation that has been historically provided by the FCC. Not angry because the FCC is a governmental regulatory organization. Angry, rather, because it has been government done poorly! Angry because the FCC has always been an organization with grossly insufficient direction from both its own scientists and engineers and those in the outside professional community. Angry because the people at its top who cannot possibly understand the spectrum management engineering arguments and their ramifications still make the final decisions.
It is generally not the case that the FCC is administered by uneducated bureaucratic dummies who are the “survivors” in the civil service. (The Commissioners themselves are political appointees, so not much relief can be expected there.) Their top staff people may well have advanced degrees from well-recognized universities in law, economics, public service, or business. But they may also carry college academic transcripts that indicate they earned grades of C- or lower in their “introductory survey of physics for non-science majors” or “business calculus” courses, the last technical requirement courses they might ever take. It would be fascinating to know!
Would you still believe that a solid background in a technical discipline isn’t really a necessity for a successful top manager in that same discipline? Then you ought to consider the prospects for a hospital surgery department managed by a Wall Street options trader. Or an airline’s Pilot Training and Certification Department administered by an (non-aviator) economist. Or a nuclear power plant Reactor Operations department led by a divorce lawyer. And, for that matter, a clinical psychological counseling group managed by an RF engineer!
There are few easy decisions to be made in the area of RF spectrum management, which, by its very nature, is a highly technical area. Is it not perhaps reasonable and rational for the regulatory decision makers in spectrum management to be highly qualified in its physics and engineering disciplines? Is it not reasonable for the regulators to accept, and even to actively seek, engineering advice from non-governmental technical experts? Certainly lawyers can write the subsequent Rules, and economists can do the industry financial assessments. But highly experienced engineers need to make the spectrum management decisions! And by the way, in this new and enlightened era politicians and lobbyists would be nowhere to be seen around the FCC!
What a beautiful, satisfying dream-in-progress experience this was…..which dream was abruptly terminated in mid-course by the clamor of trash cans clanging in the alley behind The Portals in Washington, D. C.! “And so another typical day at the FCC begins……..”
What do you think?
“Let’s save the universe for RF!”
The Old RF Curmudgeon
Since 1963, LBA has been providing RF equipment and engineering consulting services for radio and television broadcast and wireless communications.
I believe that two other HUGE FCC Spectrum Management Mistakes were:
1.) Adoption of 8VSB over COFDM for the modulation method of local TV (OTA) broadcasts. I had co-workers that were performing the field strength testing and reception reliability of simultaneous broadcasting of both types of modulated carriers. These were official tests comissioned by the FCC under the FCC guidance and specifications. Written reports were provided to the FCC. Every day the crew would tell us that the tuners in their mobile test truck would obtain and keep lock on the COFDM signal versus the 8VSB tuner obtaining its signal from the same antenna would flicker out of lock very frequently. The COFDM was able to lock in fringe areas where the 8VSB tuner could not lock – even when they were stationary. Almost everyone in the US who wishes to use OTA broadcast of television struggles with the difficulties of receiving their local broadcasts. Forget rabbit ears or any kind of indoor antenna whatsoever.
2.) Overlooking the presence of MPEG-4 as being readily available during the Digital TV implementation in the USA. I was involved in Network Broadcast Television in the late 1990′s when the NBC, ABC and CBS were first providing HD feeds to the affiliates. That was MPEG-2 encoded and required the full 40 MHz satellite transponder for a single HD video feed. At that time, stations were paying over $50K for a 32″ HD plasma television just to monitor themselves. There didn’t seem to be any way that a consumer could affort HDTV. As technology became cheaper, the MPEG encoding also became better. Later, in order to save huge amounts of money on satellite transponders, all of the networks have transitioned their satellite transmissions to MPEG-4 and can send 3 HD programs within the same 40 MHz transponder. They did this in the late 2000′s – before the DTV Transition Mandate. Currently (with some variations), the affiliates decode the MPEG-4 satellite feed then need to re-encode it as MPEG-2 that our home TV’s are compatible with. Interesting, all of the new “smart TV’s” that can stream video from the internet now have MPEG-4 decoders built into them. Let’s see the FCC pick up the ball on this and find a way to reduce the 6 MHz bandwidth required by the current OTA broadcast station to become 3 MHz.
Just putting the engineers in charge won’t work. To be insulated against bureacratic and political pressure they need to be removed from any body that regulates or manages the business-end of radio systems. That includes DoD BTW. It doesn’t mean that other bodies can’t do frequency management, but it has to be done under the auspices of the central body, with the independent authority to make changes when spectrum is not used efficiently. By making the system spectrum-centric the technical bases of decisions are strengthened, while the incumbents’ self-interest is weakened. This model exists in other parts of the world.
@Paul Moon –
Mr. Moon:
LBA Group has graciously set up provisions on its Web service so that I can now file replies to readers’ comments. I am delighted to be able to do so.
I haven’t worked directly in the area of television broadcast standards, but I have seen comments similar to yours on COFDM and the newer MPEG system offered numerous times by other professionals in these areas.
There’s always a matter of “timing” in trying to get emerging standards adopted into a new protocol, but the FCC has proven it can act expeditiously when forced: in the early 1990s the US came perilously close to adopting the Japanese analog HDTV standard. US industry raised a vociferous objection, and the action was headed off at the last minute.
I don’t think we’ll see any change in the 6 MHz OTA TV channel standard, however. There are too many TV receivers already in service that would become obsolete overnight.
—ORFC
@Wayne Longman –
Mr. Longman:
You’re correct, of course. But just getting some spectrum management decision-making authority for the FCC’s senior engineers would be a first “crawl” step, prior to transferring spectrum management to an independent group, an action which would represent “walking.” For that independent agency I would like to see a working group from the National Academy of Science/National Academy of Engineering.
—ORFC