The Future of Wireless in
Education
Some Thoughts
Peter M. Siegel
CIO, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
[email protected]
Networking 2001
Washington, DC
April 11, 2001
One Taxonomy of Wireless - 1
• Room- or building-specific
– “wired” classrooms or office suites
• little interference, put in “what works”, security manageable by
negotiation
• Ethernet, campus provided
• Campus-level (Ethernet)
• cost and security issues significant, but getting addressed soon
– important to know who is using the network
• scaling to >>1000 users
• Ethernet, campus provided
One Taxonomy of Wireless - 2
• Community Wireless
– Various protocols, industry-provided services
– Universities believe/hope that negotiation with local
companies can lead to seamless services for campus
community off-campus
• (Not borne out yet for cable or DSL…)
• Wide-area (inter/national) Wireless
– As above
– Only hope is flexible, open approach to service
provision
What else?
• Old news:
– Wireless means integrated voice and data
– The Web on PDAs: not very interesting per se
• More Important
–
–
–
–
multimedia streaming to small devices
asynchronous and synchronous services
educational value <==> entertainment value
Specialized services on a range of devices, not dumbeddown desktop services
Next-Generation Wireless
• Campus Managed: Extension of Wired Infrastructure
– >10 mbits now
– integrated with wireline billing now
– security, geographic location identification almost here
• Wide-area “3G” Wireless
–
–
–
–
100s of kilobits mobile to mbits indoors
billing standards developing
security? Geographic location to be there
Timing: Will companies recoup “2G” system investments first?
eLearning, eCollaboration, and
Wireless
• eLearning & eCollaboration teach us students/faculty
need/want access to the best campus services even when
off-campus or outside classroom settings
– First wave: Comparable speeds as on campus for basic services
• Wired apartments, homes
• High-speed access to local services over web to anywhere
– Second wave: Truly mobile access to services beyond the web
• Staying in asynchronous data contact >> synchronous voice contact
• Synchronous data contact: Learning communities in traditional
locations (library) and non-traditional locations
Integrated View
of Wireless Services
Universities must move from taking care of services
they can own…
…To working with industry to ensure that wide-area
wireless interoperates with campus services,
allowing:
– a consistent view of services by end-user
– a small number of interfaces and protocols
– no blocking of required security (e.g. VPN) or other
basic functions for “consumer” services
Issue #1
• Bottleneck: It’s very hard to get information from
industry regarding technical directions and timing
– Benefits of cooperating with academia early on appear
less than in the past
– Churn in industry
• has obscured earlier joint successes
• means company contacts often do not know company technical
plans
• means technical plans may change without warning
• makes it hard for universities to develop business models
Issue #2
• If industry-provided wireless is cheaper,
more pervasive, and better, will campuslevel wireless have been a good investment?
– Academics want consistent access everywhere:
work, home, roaming campus, roaming the
world
– Services must work anywhere
– Answer depends on timing
Issue #3
• Same technologies are used for business
and personally…
– cell phone, PDA, computer, broadband services
– notion of managing uses by having duplicate
devices and networks is not sensible, but often
the case today for academics following “the
rules” (e.g. state law)
Issue #4
• Ubiquitous, mobile computing is going to expand
more rapidly than we think
– The services may be high-end today, but will be basic
to students, service workers, even faculty
– Business models for paying for services are still
primitive
– Reliability and location-identification a major problem
• life safety issues, emergencies, tracking network attacks
Issue #5
• Security and Compliance is growing problem for
education
– Conflict between anonymous access (library) and need
to identify source of attacks/threats
• Some university lawyers: we must show due diligence in
logging activity and tracking perpetrators
– Wireless, esp. from non-campus, services will
exacerbate this
• (A variant on the “hotmail” problem)
– DMCA, HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act), CIPA (Children’s Internet Protection Act),
...and the list goes on...
Issue #6
• Scalability
– Managing over wide range of customer
densities
– Can we manage the wireless complex?
– Can we afford it?
– Can we bill for it effectively and cheaply?
Issue #7
• The digital divide is exacerbated by improvements in
communications technology
– Haves vs Have-nots:
• Haves can learn all the time at home, play, experiment
• Have-nots must “wait in line”, work on task, and leave scarce public
sites (school seats, libraries, etc)
• Universities may not be able to provide “free” access to community
because of security/compliance isues
– Cities vs. low-density areas
• Services may deploy years later (or never?) at enormous cost
differences
– Promise of eLearning is in broad access
• Profitable “low-hanging” fruit is among those who can pay the
premium
Conclusion
• Wireless Technologies, as part of Ubiquitous Mobile
Computing, becoming critical to academia
• Academia is technically-capable, innovation-oriented, and
enthusiastic
• Reaching non-traditional students and communities,
especially have-nots, needs more partnership among
academia, government, industry
• Many issues remain that slow down the effective
adoption/deployment of these new technologies
– regulatory, cultural, financial, and technical
ITFS, 3G, and the NPRM
Preserving and Developing Education’s
Spectrum for the 21st Century
EDUCAUSE
Kenneth D. Salomon
Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC
[email protected]
What is ITFS
• ITFS = Instructional Television Fixed Service
• FCC designated 2.5 GHz for educational use 40
years ago
• Use by schools, colleges, universities, and other
educational groups
• Nearly 1300 ITFS licensees:
– 331 colleges & universities with 752 licenses
– 738 k-12 schools (public and private) with 879 licenses
– 9 statewide networks
What is ITFS Used for
Current Uses:
• Video broadcasting (used
by millions of students at
tens of thousands of
locations)
• Professional development
Future Uses:
• Wireless broadband at
little or no cost to
educational institutions
• Two-way digital video for
interactive distance
learning
• Wireless Wide Area
Networking
Role of Commercial Partners
• Lease excess capacity from ITFS licensees
– Revenue sharing/equipment and technical support
– Shared network
• Use excess capacity to provide video or fixed
wireless broadband services
– The only broadband option for some
– DSL/cable modem competition for others
• Two way authority makes spectrum more valuable
to ITFS licensees
What is 3G
• Next (third) generation cell phone service
• Provides data at faster speeds, but is not
truly broadband
• “Global standard” although spectrum
allocation varies from country to country
• Several different standards evolving
FCC NPRM on 3G
• 3G proponents claim an additional 160 MHz
below 3GHz are “required”
• 2000 World Radio Conference identified 1.7
(DoD) and 2.5 (ITFS/MMDS) GHz bands as
possible candidates
• Clinton October 2000 memorandum
– NTIA and FCC Final Staff Reports
• March 30, 2001
• http://www.fcc.gov/3G/
What is the Problem?
• The 160 MHz of additional spectrum below
3 GHz is NOT available unless existing
users are relocated by the FCC or NTIA
• A prime band under review is used by ITFS
• There is a very real risk that ITFS will be
relocated to much less desirable frequency
• Threatens continued revenues/equipment
support from commercial providers and roll
out of high speed wireless access
Comments on 2.5 GHz Band
With regard to ITFS, the FCC asks:
• Could a portion of the ITFS/MMDS band
be made available to new entities?
• If so, how much spectrum, and where in the
band?
• Could incumbent ITFS/MMDS licensees be
accommodated in other bands?
Comments on 2.5 GHz (cont’d)
• If so, what procedures would apply to the
relocated ITFS/MMDS licensees?
– Expense reimbursement, alternative facilities, etc.
• Would allowing ITFS and MMDS licensees
to provide mobile service be beneficial
without reallocating the spectrum to other
licensees?
Who Else is Involved?
• Other policy makers involved:
--Congress
--White House
-- Department of Commerce
-- Department of Education
WEB NOW Campaign
• Wireless Educational Broadband Now or
WEB NOW Campaign
– Website: www.itfs.org/webnow
– NIA and ITFS Spectrum Alliance
• Working with Catholic Television Network
– 100+ National, State, Local Members
• EDUCAUSE
– Both Washington and Grassroots
– Targeting FCC, Congress, NTIA, White House
WEB NOW Campaign
• Washington
– LobbyingVisits, Letters and Calls
• FCC and on the Hill
– FCC Comments and Reply Comments
– Letters to Secretaries Paige and Evans
– Media
• Grassroots
The Future of Wireless
in Education
Bill Lane
Chief Technologist
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
Today’s Plan
 Framing the issues
 How your Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) fits in!
 The search for 3G spectrum
& why all this is important to you!
The “Enterprise” Environment
Source: Drew and Dillinger, “Evolution Toward Reconfigurable User
Equipment”, IEEE Communications Magazine, February 2001
The Convergence Issue!
Bluetooth
WAP
BREW
PalmOS
802.11b
J2ME
CDMA
BWA
GSM
PocketPC
C#
HiperLan/2
XML
Smartphone
PDA
3G
The “Cellular/PCS” Issue
70%
Estimated Subscribers
Penetration
60%
50%
150
Cellular/PCS Subscribers
& Penetration
40%
100
30%
20%
50
10%
0%
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
19 19
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
84 85 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 000 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008
(e
(e
(e
(e
(e
(e
(e
(e
(e
(e
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Source: Cellular Telecommunications Industry
Association and Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette
Penetration
Millions of Subscribers
200
Part of the “Spectrum” Issue
Spectrum Identified by ITU for IMT-2000 Near 2 GHz
175
140
WRC-2000
90
WARC-92
1700
1750
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
2050
2100
2150
2200
M Hz
US Spectrum Use Near 2GHz
95
10
85
35
35
Satellite
45
40
PCS
1700
60
1750
1800
1850
20
1900
5
60
1950
MHz
2000
2050
2100
2150
2200
PCS Mobile
PCS Unlic
PCS Base
Prop. Adv. Srvc.
MSS Uplink
MSS Downlink
Govt
Govt/Bcast Aux
MDS
The “Wireless Access” Issue
WLAN
Data Rate
Spectrum
Bluetooth
1 Mbps
802.11b
11 Mbps
802.11a
54 Mbps
5.0 GHz
802.11g
22 Mbps
2.4 GHz
2.4 GHz
Unlicensed!
2.4 GHz
Part 15!
Part 15
 No harmful interference caused and
received interference accepted
 Limited power
 Must accede to primary licensed users
The FCC
 Established by the Communications Act of 1934
Independent agency of U.S. government
Responsible to Congress
 Charged with establishing policy to govern interstate and
international communications by television, radio, wire,
satellite, and cable
Note: Government use is handled by the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA), Dept. of Commerce
 Headed by five Commissioners, each appointed by the
President, with one designated as Chairman
Chairman Michael Powell (R)
Commissioner Susan Ness (D) [Kathleen Abernathy]
Commissioner Gloria Tristani (D)
Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth (R) [Kevin Martin]
[Michael Copps]
The FCC
Seven Bureau’s
WTB
Ten Office’s
Administrative Law Judges
Engineering and Technology
Inspector General
Managing Director
Plans and Policy
Cable Services Bureau
Common Carrier Bureau
Consumer Information Bureau
Enforcement Bureau
International Bureau
Mass Media Bureau
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Communications Business Opportunities
General Counsel
Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Media Relations
Workplace Diversity
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Responsible for all FCC domestic wireless telecommunications
programs & policies except satellite communications
or broadcasting.
Provide information, licensing, rulemaking, data storage for:
 Cellular telephones
 Paging services
 Personal communications services
 Public safety
 Commercial wireless services
 Private wireless services
 Auction spectrum
The Process
Notice of Inquiry (NOI): Gather information, generate ideas
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM): Propose rule
changes and seek public comment
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM):
seek further public comment on specific issues
Report and Order (R&O): issue new rules, amend existing
rules, make decisions not to do so; entered in Federal
Register
Petition for Reconsideration: Dissatisfied with issue
resolution, within 30 days file for reconsideration
Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O): response to
petition for reconsideration
Core U.S. Goals
for Spectrum Management
•
•
•
•
•
Maximize efficient use of radio spectrum
Promote competition
Expand access
Protect and promote the public interest
Ensure ability of operators to adapt to new
technologies, new services and new market
needs
Source: FCC Principles for Reallocation of Spectrum to Encourage
the Development of Telecommunications Technologies for the New Millenium, 18 NOV 99
Goal Implementation
In the U.S., these core goals are achieved by:
 Allowing for flexible spectrum uses
 Enabling multiple competing technologies
 Minimizing the number of rules
– to eliminate harmful interference
– to promote competition
 Using auctions to assign licenses
–
–
–
–
–
Communications Act of 1934
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
Telecommunications Act of 1996
Balanced Budget Act of 1997
Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1999
Policy Implications - Flexibility
Allowing flexibility in spectrum usage means
that:
• License uses should not be restricted except
to prevent interference
(e.g., authorize fixed as well as mobile, data
as well as voice)
• Operators should be allowed to evolve to
more advanced services
Policy Implications - Technology Neutrality
Technology Neutrality means that:
• Multiple & competing technologies are allowed and
encouraged
• Industry takes the lead in achieving
interoperability/harmonization/standardization
• Innovation is encouraged and led by industry
US Allows 2G Licensees To Evolve Into
3G Providers
• Incumbent services, such as cellular, PCS
and ESMR, have regulatory flexibility to
evolve to advanced services, such as IMT2000
• However, merely granting regulatory
flexibility to allow incumbents to deploy
advanced services may not be sufficient to
respond to anticipated demand
1 700-2690 MHZ BAND
PRESENT AND PLANNED USE
SAT
PCS
BASE
G/NG
2010
1880 1920 1980
2025
DECT
UNPAIR
UMTS
MOB
GSM
MOB
IMT -2000
UMTS
BASE
DECT
TDD (1890-1880)
GSM
BASE
1710
MMDS(2150-2160)
UMTS UNPAIRED
1785 1805
2G
EUROPE
& OTHERS
MDS, MMDS, ITFS
2110 2170
MSSUP
3G
EUROPE
& OTHERS
MSS DN
PCS
MOB
2690
MSS DN
FX, MOB,
TO BE
AUCT
GOVT
2110 2165
1990 2025
MSSUP
U.S.
1930
1910
1850
PCSUNP
TO BE
AUCT
1710 1755
1885
MSS UPLINK
(1980-2010)
2025
MSS DOWNLINK
(2170-2200)
MSS (20 MHz)
2110
TERRESTRIAL
TERRESTRIAL
TERRESTRIAL + HAPS
1700
August 26, 2000
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
MHz
2300
2400
2500
ADDITIONAL
IMT-2000
SATELLITE
(141 MHz)
2600
2700
1525 - 1559
1610 -1660.5
2483.5 - 2500
2500 - 2520
2670 - 2690
Three U.S. Goals for WRC-2000
• Identify more than one band pair for IMT-2000
use.
– Different countries have different needs for mobile spectrum.
• Allow nations to choose among bands that are
equally appropriate for IMT-2000 use.
– Mandatory harmonization stifles competition and
technological development.
• Adopt a technologically-neutral band allocation.
– Industry decisions should rest on sound engineering, not on
arbitrary government decisions.
Results of WRC-2000
• WRC-2000 adopted an equitable, multiband, technologically neutral approach for
IMT-2000.
• Bands Identified for IMT-2000:
– 806-960 MHz (WRC-00, FN S5.XXX )
– 1885-2025 MHz and 2110-2200 MHz
(WARC-92,
FN S5.388)
– 1710-1885 MHz and 2500-2690 MHz
FN S5.AAA
• Bottom Line - Need 160 MHz!
(WRC-00,
United States Considering New Allocations for
Advanced Services
• In December 2000 NPRM, FCC proposed
allocating:
–
–
–
–
2110-2150 MHz
2160-2165 MHz
1710-1755 MHz
Auction by 2002
• Study Alternative Bands
– 1755-1850 MHz (Current DoD spectrum)
– 2500-2690 MHz (Current MDS/ITFS)
1755-1850 MHz in the U.S.
• DoD telecommand, telemetry and control of
military satellites
• Military tactical radio-relay
• Government fixed microwave
• Military instrumented ranges
• Naval ship-ship, ship-shore digital wideband voice and data links
Study Result: “Some” limited sharing possible;
~$ 4-5B relocation costs; long time frame
2500-2690 MHz in the U.S.
• High-speed fixed wireless
– Multichannel Multipoint Distribution System (MMDS)
– Instructional Fixed Television Service
(ITFS)
• Former one-way multi-channel video programming
providers prepare to launch two-way wireless
broadband services
Study Result: Sharing not possible; relocation
unlikely; ~$ 10-30 B to relocate
Next Steps for Additional
3G Allocations
FCC NPRM on Additional 3G Spectrum
issued December 2000
FCC and NTIA Final Sharing Reports
Published in March 2001
FCC Report and Order on Additional 3G
Spectrum by 3rd Quarter 2001
FCC Auction of Additional 3G Spectrum by
3rd Quarter 2002
700 MHz Band
Auction of licenses in the 747-762 and 777-792
MHz band scheduled for September 2001
Bands slated for auction can be used to provide a
wide range of advanced wireless services,
including IMT-2000
Relocation of existing users (TV) and protection
of public safety important issues for these bands
3G Additional Steps
In November 2000, FCC issued NPRM on
promoting secondary markets in spectrum
(Report and Order expected in 2001)
In December 2000, FCC issued NPRM on CMRS
Spectrum Cap
(Report and Order expected in 2001)
In December 2000, FCC issued NPRM on
software defined radio
Comments on Studies due April 16, 2001
Conclusion
FCC is sensitive to the issues at hand!
Following an equitable, regionally coherent and
technologically neutral approach for IMT-2000:
– Maximizes efficient use of radio spectrum
– Promotes competition among users
– Allows industry to implement new technologies and new
services
Converging services and public demand can be
accommodated
Federal Communications Commission
• Home Page:
http://www.fcc.gov/
• Electronic Filing System:
http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/
Bill Lane
WTB, FCC
Phone: 202-418-0676
Email: [email protected]