bsteven@Apple.COM (Bill Stevens) (05/05/91)
Dear Reader,
On January 28, 1991, Apple Computer filed a petition with the Federal
Communications Commission, requesting the creation of a new radio
band, which we call "Data-PCS".
May 10, 1991 is the FCC's deadline for comments from the public on this
important issue. If created, Data-PCS will enable all computer
manufacturers to produce high performance wireless communications products
for the United States.
Please review the following information, and consider what benefits
YOU might gain from the creation of this new communications capability.
Instructions are included for writing directly to the FCC. Alternately,
you may simply "reply" to this posting, which will return your electronic
comments to Apple Computer. We will forward all such replies to the FCC.
The preferable approach, of course, is to mail a personal letter to the
Chairman of the FCC, as described below.
Thank you,
William M. Stevens
manager, Wireless Communications Research
Apple Computer
P.S. A "text" version of Apple's "Data-PCS" petition may be obtained
via anonymous FTP from:
ftp.apple.com
/pub/fcc/datapcs.txt
If you desire a copy of the petition but are unable to obtain it via
this method, please reply to this posting (at data.pcs@applelink.apple.com),
and indicate that you are requesting a copy of the petition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 24, 1991
An Open Letter from David Nagel,
Vice President for Advanced Technologies, Apple Computer, Inc.
Apple recently asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to allow
radio frequencies to be used for wireless data communications. We call this
new technology "Data-PCS," for Data Personal Communications Service. It will
permit high-capacity computer information to be communicated among people
using personal computers, throughout a radius of about 50 meters indoors.
Today there is no provision in the law assuring this function- and we need
your help to make Data-PCS possible.
Apple is asking that computers be able to communicate wirelessly the way they
do on wired networks (at high speeds and sharing the network equitably). We
are asking that a small part of the airwaves be made available to all computer
manufacturers and users, without requiring radio licenses or having to pay for
using the airwaves. Apple's vision of Data-PCS particularly focuses on
"spontaneous" computer communications, whenever and wherever you want to
access resources or collaborate with others having similarly equipped PC's or
other compatible equipment.
The convergence of wireless communications and computers, particularly
portable computers, will dramatically change the nature of computing. People
in business, scientists, engineers - those in all walks of life - will be
liberated from the constraints of physical networks. Creativity and personal
productivity will be enhanced. Students and teachers will no longer be
confined to a rigid classroom set-up. Instead, computing, communications, and
therefore learning, will take place everywhere.
John Sculley, Apple's CEO, recently said: "The key strength of twenty-first
century organizations will be not their size or structure, but their ability
to simultaneously unleash and coordinate the creative contributions of many
individuals." Data-PCS is one of the tools that will enable individuals to
realize this vision.
Data-PCS is being featured in numerous newspapers, magazines and professional
journals. Recently IBM, NCR, Tandy, Grid and other computer companies have
told the FCC that they strongly endorse the need for radio spectrum for Data-
PCS.
But Data-PCS is now a vision, not yet a reality. It will not happen unless
the FCC adopts new Federal regulations. Radio spectrum is a scarce and
valuable commodity, sought for many functions. Apple is asking the FCC to
give Data-PCS "equitable" consideration when viewing needs for spectrum. When
the FCC passes new regulations, Apple and a host of other companies can make
Data-PCS real.
The most powerful voices in support of Data-PCS will be those of users like
yourself. I ask you to write to the FCC, not only stating your support but,
to the extent you are willing, explaining how you might find Data-PCS of value
to you and your organization. Suggestions on how to direct your comments are
attached. The FCC's formal review process on Data-PCS has a next major
milestone May 10; I hope you'll write by then.
Thank you for considering this issue. The true value of Data-PCS will only be
realized when it is available to all of us. I hope you share our vision and
will help make it come true.
Very truly yours,
David Nagel
Vice President, Advanced Technology Group
Apple Computer, Inc.
Supporting Data-PCS:
Please write a letter using the reference number the FCC assigned our petition
for Data-PCS: "RM-7618." You should address and send your letter as follows:
(On your institution's letterhead if possible.)
(Date)
Hon. Alfred C. Sikes, Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
Reference: Rulemaking 7618
Dear Mr. Chairman:
We (I) understand that Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple") has asked
the FCC to allocate spectrum to establish a new radio service
("Data-PCS") for local area high speed communications among
personal computing devices. We are writing to urge you to grant
Apple's request (RM-7618).
(Please describe in the text your views on how Data-PCS could be
important to you.)
Respectfully submitted,
Your name and title or function
If you would like a copy of Apple's Petition to the FCC for Data-PCS, or if
you have questions, please call (408) 974-4674 or email to:
internet: data.pcs@applelink.apple.com
applelink: data.pcshenry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (05/05/91)
In article <52465@apple.Apple.COM> bsteven@Apple.COM (Bill Stevens) writes: >... I ask you to write to the FCC, not only stating your support but, >to the extent you are willing, explaining how you might find Data-PCS of value >to you and your organization... >Please write a letter using the reference number the FCC assigned our petition >for Data-PCS: "RM-7618." ... >"...We are writing to urge you to grant Apple's request (RM-7618)..." A note of caution: there are two separate issues here, and Apple is (deliberately or accidentally) confusing them. One is whether spectrum provision for radio local networks is desirable. The other is whether Apple's specific proposal should be adopted as the means to that end. I would suggest that you should not write to the FCC saying "please do it Apple's way" unless you have studied the details of Apple's proposal and understand the tradeoffs involved. If your position is "radio networking would be very useful to us, although we don't understand the specifics of Apple's proposal and its implications", say exactly that. I have *not* studied the specifics of Apple's proposal, and am not up on the complex tradeoffs involved in spectrum allocation, so I cannot comment one way or another on the technical merits of their proposal. But I will say that this public appeal, and its wording, make me very suspicious that somebody's trying to pull a fast one. "Don't worry about what the fine print says, you wouldn't understand it anyway, just hurry up and sign it." -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (05/05/91)
In article <1991May5.051210.23293@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
I have *not* studied the specifics of Apple's proposal, and am not up
on the complex tradeoffs involved in spectrum allocation, so I cannot
comment one way or another on the technical merits of their proposal.
But I will say that this public appeal, and its wording, make me very
suspicious that somebody's trying to pull a fast one. "Don't worry
about what the fine print says, you wouldn't understand it anyway, just
hurry up and sign it."
Not to mention the fact that their petition doesn't specify who's going to
*lose* spectrum. I also couldn't find a copy of the petition posted to
rec.radio.amateur.misc, where there are a number of people qualified to
discuss the specifics of it. I also noticed a separate copy of the article
posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc.
--
--russ <nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker.
It's better to get mugged than to live a life of fear -- Freeman Dyson
I joined the League for Programming Freedom, and I hope you'll join too.woody@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Bill Woodcock) (05/07/91)
> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > This public appeal, and its wording, make me > very suspicious that somebody's trying to > pull a fast one. "Don't worry about what the > fine print says, you wouldn't understand it > anyway, just hurry up and sign it." > nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes: > Not to mention the fact that their petition > doesn't specify who's going to *lose* > spectrum. I also couldn't find a copy of the > petition posted to rec.radio.amateur.misc, > where there are a number of people qualified > to discuss the specifics of it. I also > noticed a separate copy of the article posted > to comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc. Insofar as I know, there are two groups concertedly opposed to Apple's proposition: Telcos, (primarily BellSouth and AT&T) and utilities. (Local public utilities, and railroads.) The FCC has, at the behest of a group of Telcos, been making a long-term inquiry into the possibility of PCS (Personal Communications Services) and PCN (Personal Communications Networks) since June of 1990. Since the beginning of this year, Apple has "subverted" the Telco's proposal, which included provision for _both voice and data_, and was moving ahead at a leisurely pace, changed it to suit their own needs, accelerated the pace, and refused to answer any questions about their intentions. Basically, this mean that they dropped all provisions for voice communications, which I consider vital, since currently allocated cellular bandwidth won't last us forever, and have been avoiding dealing with issues like security, what to do with the people who are currently using the bandwidth, and where to expand cellular to. So, this brings us to the utilities, who are the current licensees of the bandwidth. So far, the primary users of the "Operational Fixed Service Licenses" in this area of the spectrum are public utilities, like your gas, water, electric, and possibly even your local telco. They've been using the bandwidth to communicate between offices, and to communicate with service vehicles. Railroads have also invested heavily in transmitter towers located every 40-50 miles along their rights-of-way. Currently, most estimates show that about a third of a billion dollars worth of capital investment in frequency-specific equipment would be rendered useless, if Apple's version of the bill passes unmodified. There is currently no provision in Apple's bill for compensation, and I find this to be a rather remote prospect, in any case, since Apple has proposed that the bandwidth be made available to all computer vendors. I suggest two possible compromises: 1) Apple could just use the bandwidth that the FCC has already set aside for the purpose of unlicensed microwave transmission in Parts 15.247 and 15.249. Several vendors have already started making networking components which utilize this area of the spectrum, and are having notable success. This area is significantly more hospitable to high-bitrate communications than the even shorter frequencies that Apple has asked for, but Apple couldn't monopolize it. 2) Apple could, as Motorola has done, just buy an expanse of spectrum, up where there's little demand, and do whatever they feel like with it. They wouldn't need to worry about displacing anyone, or commandeering anyone elses' planned expansion, and they wouldn't have any competition within that spread. -Bill Woodcock BMUG NetAdmin ________________________________________________________________________________ bill.woodcock.iv..woody@ucscb.ucsc.edu..2355.virginia.st..berkeley.ca.94709.1315