sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) (02/17/91)
I was waiting for someone else to report this, so I didn't submit it when I saw it, but nobody has and now I don't have the details in front of me but ... There was an article in the paper here (LA) the other day that said there was a petition (due?) before the FCC to allocate a portion of the spectrum currently used for commercial mobile phone systems (taxi, delivery dispatching) to be divided up for an alternate cellular-type phone usage. Sorry, I don't remember any of the technical details but maybe someone else can follow-up. Jeff Sicherman
den0@midway.uchicago.edu (funky chicken) (02/20/91)
In article <telecom11.127.4@eecs.nwu.edu> sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: > There was an article in the paper here (LA) the other day that said > there was a petition (due?) before the FCC to allocate a portion of > the spectrum currently used for commercial mobile phone systems (taxi, > delivery dispatching) to be divided up for an alternate cellular-type > phone usage. Sorry, I don't remember any of the technical details but > maybe someone else can follow-up. Being a mere interested hobbiest, my perspective might be a bit skewed, but here's what I know. This alternate cellular thang is going under names like "Personal Communications Networks" (PCN) and Cordless Telephone 2nd and 3rd Generations (CT2 and CT3, respectively). It is an attempt to improve upon the implementation of cellular phones so as to make them feasible on a very large scale. As we all know, the glory of the cellular phone is that it allows more direct, person to person (rather than station to station) calls. If the cellular system could be modified so to make wireless PBXs practical, a lot of people would be happy and a lot of people would rich. It'd also be nice if cellular services had enough quality to support high-speed data transfer and fax. The main obstacle is spectrum use. The way we're using it, there simply isn't enough radio spectrum to go around. (HDTV is having similar problems finding a space in which to broadcast). It seems likely that 1700 to 2300 MHz (which is being used in the UK for PCN) might be adopted as an international standard for PCN. And, of course, there are good reasons for wanting to have any US systems be compatible. Unfortunately, this frequency range is currently divided into five bands which are allocated to: the government; private- operational fixed microwave use; auxiliary broadcast and cable use, and public fixed microwave. Several solutions present themselves. The FCC can allocate some frequencies exclusively to PCN or it can establish some sort of sharing system. Estimates as to how much bandwidth PCN would need vary from 60 MHz up to 230 MHz (this is AT&T's upper estimate). Obviously, this is a messy issue. Existing users of these frequencies generally don't want to move or share. Some congresscritter (named Dingell?) has written legislation that would allocate some of the federal government's spectrum for private use. I don't know what frequency range he wants to move or whether it'd have the right propagation characteristics. On the other hand, we can use a spread spectrum approach. Part of the niceness of this would be that people using spread spectrum at less than one watt wouldn't need a license (a big plus from the market's point of view). There're a host of technical problems in implementing this, naturally. There are a lot of companies working on developing this. BellSouth, Bell Atlantic, NYNEX, Motorola, Ericsson all come to mind. Matt Funkchick
ibbotson@uunet.uu.net (Craig Ibbotson) (02/21/91)
den0@midway.uchicago.edu (funky chicken) writes: > In article <telecom11.127.4@eecs.nwu.edu> sichermn@beach.csulb.edu > (Jeff Sicherman) writes: >> There was an article in the paper here (LA) the other day that said >> there was a petition (due?) before the FCC to allocate a portion of >> the spectrum currently used for commercial mobile phone systems (taxi, >> delivery dispatching) to be divided up for an alternate cellular-type >> phone usage. Sorry, I don't remember any of the technical details but >> maybe someone else can follow-up. > Being a mere interested hobbiest, my perspective might be a bit > skewed, but here's what I know. > This alternate cellular thang is going under names like "Personal > Communications Networks" (PCN) and Cordless Telephone 2nd and 3rd ... stuff deleted I believe this alternate cellular system is NOT PCN but actually a third carrier in each city. This week's {U.S News and World Report} has a short article describing the decision. I don't have the article with me, but if I remember correctly they are going to allow taxi and other dispatching services to use their frequency allocation for cellular purposes. The article specifically stated it is the FCC's intention to create a third carrier in order to bring down the cost of cellular service. If no one else posts the article, I will post it tomorrow.
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (02/21/91)
Craig Ibbotson <motcid!ibbotson@uunet.uu.net> writes: > I believe this alternate cellular system is NOT PCN but actually a > third carrier in each city. That is correct. And it will not be a cellular system in the classic sense, but will be an alternative to cellular service. The cellular providers have been lobbying overtime in the halls of Congress to attempt to get legislation passed that will block the FCC from approving this alternate system. You can understand the cellular providers' position. As a person who worked on the engineering of some of the first applications, I heard all the behind the scenes glee about how operating a cellular system would be a license to print money. Charge what you like, no competition, and like Burger King, everything would be your way. This has turned out to be somewhat true: PUCs essentially let the providers set the rates and considering the demand, two carriers per market is hardly competition. Now, enter the alternative. The FCC has indicated that one of the reasons to introduce this service is to bring cellular prices down. The traditional cellular providers can already feel the dollars leaking out of their pockets. And what do you do in this country when you feel threatened by the competition? Why, you follow the lead of AT&T and you go to Congress for relief. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !