Report : Second Meeting of the FCC Technological Advisory Council

Executive Overview

The Federal Communications Commission Technological Advisory Council
(FCC TAC) held its second meeting on April 30,1999 in Washington, D.C.
The Council is to provide scientifically supportable information on
those emerging technologies that could fundamentally impact the work of
the FCC. In response to five specific requests from the FCC, the TAC at
its first meeting organized three focus groups with moderators to
address: spectrum management; network interconnection and access, and
access to telecommunications by persons with disabilities. Each of these
groups reported out findings developed in the interim and expanded each
area during a roundtable discussion. It is planned that the groups will
work between the approximately three formal meetings per year of the TAC
to provide expert advice relative to the FCC requests.

The Spectrum Management Focus Group is organized into three subworking
groups. The ultrawideband radio (UWB) subgroup reported on this emerging
technology. UWB transmitters typically emit very short time duration
pulses which spread very low spectral profile energy over many
gigahertz. Current regulation of the electromagnetic spectrum is
implemented by assigning specific portions of the spectrum to a specific
use. Because UWB devices appear to encroach on already allocated
spectrum significant controversy has resulted. The TAC is attempting to
reduce this controversy by collecting technically defensible information
on impacts and advantages. Whether or not existing spectrum management
policies restrict the development or deployment of this technology is
one key issue which this group will address.

The software defined radio (SDR) subgroup discussed SDRs which can be
programmed and reprogrammed either locally or remotely to emulate a
variety of signal waveforms, communications protocols and etiquettes.
SDRs can be continuously aware of their local position and radio
environment to intelligently and adaptively remold themselves into the
most appropriate device tuned to the time and place. SDRs make it
practical to consider replacing some spectral rules with etiquette based
algorithms. Experiences with etiquette and its applicability and impact
with SDRs will be studied by the SDR group. The group has recommended
that there be a systematic collection and analysis of information on
SDRs, and that, in cooperation with industry, experiments planned to
test and demonstrate those principles needed for informed regulatory
modifications.

The FCC needs to develop a more complete understanding the current state
of the radio noise environment. The noise environment subgroup's problem
somewhat analogous to the characterization of air pollution and they
report that similar techniques may be applicable. Knowledge is needed to
determine if current rules are adequate, too restrictive, or are
overlooking an emerging crisis. The group is tasked with determining how
much information already exists and can be made available without a
major effort.

The FCC has a mandate to promote competition. The lack of a generally
available method of allocating the total set of allowed end-to-end
telecommunications "impairments" in an interconnected network is
perceived to be an impediment to competition as providers who are in
complete control of the entire connection may claim that only they can
provide reliable levels of performance. If quality and performance
measures are standardized with combining principles well understood,
then networks can be parsed into separately and competitively supplied
segments. The network interconnection and access focus group will review
the progress and plans of the industry's effort to solve this problem
without the need for government intervention.

The Commission is required by statute to take special action relative to
people with disabilities. A desirable outcome of the TAC would be a
general awareness and sensitivity to the problem by designers at the
early design stage, and a course of action which would allow them to
include attributes which would: allow accessibility to a broad spectrum
of people with one ore more disabilities; actually improve the value to
the general population (e.g., television's closed captions); and would
not devalue the product if not needed. One proposed approach to
motivating the work of this focus group would be to first describe
scenarios of how new telecom services might develop, then analyze how
difficulties with access by the disabled might emerge. From this, more
generic recommendations of how to avoid similar problems could be for
proposed.

***Prepared by* J. A. Bellisio**

***Approved by* R.W. Lucky**

***October 28,1999***

**[Report: Second Meeting of the FCC Technological Advisory
Council]{.underline}**

1.  Introduction

# The FCC formed the Technological Advisory Council (TAC) to help provide the technical expertise the Commission needs to stay abreast of innovations and new developments in the communications industry. As announced, the second meeting of the TAC took place on Wednesday, September 22, 1999, at The Portals, 445 S. 12th Street, SW., Washington, D.C. This report is a distillation of that meeting written to facilitate the work of the Council. A complete videotape of the meeting serves as the verbatim minutes (*see Annex 1*).

Designated Federal Officer (DFO) Stagg Newman opened the meeting, and
Dale Hatfield, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal
Communications Commission thanked the TAC for volunteering to help keep
the FCC abreast of developments in our rapidly evolving industry.

The mission and operating principles of the TAC were described in the
Report of the First Meeting of the TAC, available on the FCC web site
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/tac/ . As described in that report, the FCC has
made five official requests to the TAC for technical work. These
requests fall into three major areas: spectrum management; network
interconnection and access; and accessibility for disabled persons.
Focus groups with moderators were formed at the first meeting to address
each of the three areas. At this second meeting, the activities of each
of the groups was reviewed and is now summarized in this report. The
meeting's roundtable discussion, which followed each presentation, and
resulting action items are also reported. Additional and more extensive
information relative to each of the working groups can be found on the
web sites for those groups. *See Annex 4*

The next formal TAC meeting will be on December 13, 1999.

2.  Agenda

Technological Advisory Council\--Second Meeting\--

Wednesday, September 22, 1999

Federal Communications Commission Meeting Room

The Portals, 445 12TH Street, SW

Washington, D.C.

10:00 AM Opening Stagg Newman

> Designated Federal Officer

10:05 AM Introductions of Council Members

> with Brief Remarks (if any) Council Members

10:30 AM Report of Spectrum Focus Group Chuck Jackson

11:30 AM Report of Interconnection and Network Access

> Focus Group Marvin Sirbu

12:10 PM Break

1:00 PM Access to Telecommunications by Persons with

Disabilities Focus Group Gregg Vanderheiden

1:40 PM Discussion on Focus Group Procedures

> for Technical Work Chair Bob Lucky

2:40 PM Assignments, Organization and

> Going Forward Chair Bob Lucky

3:00 PM Wrap Up - Meeting Adjourned Stagg Newman

> Designated Federal Officer

3.  Membership of the Technological Advisory Council

Except as indicated(\*),all of the following were present at the Second
Meeting:

***Chairperson***:

Dr. Bob Lucky -- Corporate Vice President, Applied Research, Telcordia
Technologies, formerly Bellcore (Bell Communications Research).

*Members of Council*:

Mr. Bruce Allan -- Vice President and General Manager, Harris
Corporation,

\*Mr. Jose M. Alvarez Caban -- Assistive Technology Specialist, Puerto
Rico Assistive Technology Project, University of Puerto Rico.

Dr.Jules A.Bellisio,*TAC Executive Director*, Chief Scientist and
Fellow, Executive Director, Telcordia Technologies, formerly Bellcore
(Bell Communications Research).

\*Dr. Vinton Cerf -- Senior Vice President, Internet Architecture and
Technology, MCI Worldcom.

\*Ms. Susan Estrada -- President and CEO, Aldea Communication.

\*Mr. Bran Ferren -- Executive Vice President for Creative Technology
and Research Development, Disney/ABC.

Dr. Richard Green -- President and CEO, CableLabs,

Ms. Christine Hemrick - Vice President, Technology Communications,
Office of the CTO, Cisco Systems, Inc.

Mr. Dewayne Hendricks -- General Manager, Wireless Business Unit, Com21.

Mr. Ross Ireland -- Vice President -- Engineering, SBC.

Dr. Charles E. Jackson -- Independent consultant.

Mr. Kalle Kontson -- Division Technology Manager, Center for
Electromagnetic Science and Vice President IIT Research Institute

Dr. William Lee -- Chief Scientist, AirTouch/Vodaphone.

\*Dr. Paul Liao -- Chief Technology Officer, Panasonic and President of
Panasonic Technologies.

Dr. Wah Lim -- Vice President for Technology and Development for Hughes
Space and Communications Company.

Dr. Robert Martin -- Chief Technology Officer of Bell Labs, Lucent.

\*Dr. David Nagel -- President AT&T Labs and CTO for AT&T,

\*Mr. Glenn Reitmeier, Vice President, DTV and Web Media, Sarnoff
Laboratories.

\*Mr. Dennis Roberson -- Vice President & CTO, Motorola.

Dr. Marvin Sirbu -- Professor of Engineering and Public Policy,
Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Professor -- Graduate
School of Industrial Administration, and Chairman of the Information
Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.

Dr. Gregg Vanderheiden -- Professor -- Human factors Group, Dept. of
Industrial Engineering, University of Wisconsin, and Director of Trace
Research and Development Center.

Mr. Jack Waters -- VP of Network Engineering, Level 3 Communications.

Dr. Pat White - Director, Telecommunications Practice, AD Little.

Mr. Robert Zitter -- Senior Vice President, Technology Operations, Home
Box Office.

*Designated Federal Officer*

Dr. Stagg Newman, Chief Technologist, Federal Communications Commission.

*Alternate Designated Federal Officer*

Mr. Dale Hatfield, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal
Communications Commission.

\**Not present at second meeting*

*A set of short biographies of each member can be found in the first
meeting report.*

About 75 members of the public observed the meeting. There are no
comments from the public to be reported.

4\. Summary of Remarks by Representatives of the FCC

Dale Hatfield, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal
Communications Commission, welcomed the TAC and thanked them for their
efforts so far. The TAC, established to help the FCC keep ahead of rapid
changes in the industry, was reminded of the critical importance of the
three primary areas as outlined in the first meeting. Mr. Hatfield's
office has prime responsibility for matters of spectrum allocation. The
office has, so far, avoided any major crisis but understands that as
technology becomes more complex the challenge of preventing future
problems becomes progressively more challenging. Furthermore, the
proliferation of new demands and services has brought issues of network
integration to the forefront. The Commission also feels strongly about
its duty to increase the accessibility of communications to the disabled
and will be looking to the TAC for guidance as to how this mandate can
become an integral part of every appropriate design process.

4.  Report of Spectrum Focus Group and Group Discussion

Chuck Jackson reported on the activities of the Spectrum Management
Working Group using the presentation of Annex 2. The web site is quite
active and contains several contributions from the public. The Group is
divided into three subworking groups, and the roundtable discussion of
the meeting was organized around each of these areas, summarized in an
encapsulated form below:

**5.1. Ultrawideband Radio (UWB)**

Ultrawideband radio is an emerging technology utilizing transmitters
which typically emit very short time duration pulses which consequently
spread energy over many gigahertz of the radio spectrum. Such radios are
often characterized as simple, inexpensive devices which by virtue of
their low spectral energy profile can function without impact on other
services which may be sharing the same spectrum. Apparently, an
important feature of commercially viable ultrawideband devices is their
relatively lightweight realization. Efforts to include sophisticated
spectral shaping or other customized or dynamic modifications seriously
risks reducing the attractiveness of the concept. Because UWB devices
appear to encroach on already allocated spectrum significant controversy
has resulted, controversy which the TAC should attempt to reduce with
defensible technical information.

UWB radios can be used for at least three purposes (which should be
addressed separately): short range ground and object penetrating radar;
small local area networks; and last mile applications where signals are
expected to travel some distance. The radars, and to a lesser extent the
LANs, are intentionally geographically contained and are not as
contentious as the longer distance proposals where overlapping spectral
use is an issue. It is this last case that will require the most
attention. Not only will it be necessary to estimate the impact of
individual UWB sets for this application, but also the scaling laws to
account for a proliferation of devices.

-   Experiments will be needed to validate theories and claims. It would
    be convenient if Part 15 rules would allow such research, but there
    was a strong feeling that policies would have to be modified to do
    this work properly

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Assuming experiments and some new experimental radiation rules are
    needed, it may be feasible to carve out a relatively large block of
    spectrum in some geographically remote location to proceed with the
    work. It may be possible to identify an isolated area where we can
    loosen controls and minimize collateral damage.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Most proposed UWB transmitters have been relatively simple devices.
    What could be done if intelligent, cognitive, software defined
    techniques (see discussion following) were introduced, and would be
    the complexity impact be so large so as to destroy the elegance of
    the proposed systems?

-   Rules make a distinction between intentional and unintentional
    radiation. Do we need to revisit this concept for the case where a
    proposed intentional UWB transmitter will emit less radiation than
    the unintentional radiation of the device that it is serving?

-   UWB is just one of many potential new technologies which may require
    rule changes. We should become fully aware of all the contenders and
    make an impact and benefit analysis before we finalize changes.

5.2 Ultrawideband Radio-*Action Items*

## Define the state of the art for ultrawideband radios.

## Project their likely evolution.

## Identify policy implications.

##  Do existing spectrum management policies inefficiently restrict the development or deployment of this technology?

-   What is the best way to identify the apparently large body of
    information that exists for UWB, and how can it be classified?

5.3 Software Defined Radio (SDR)

Software defined radios should be understood to broadly to include
concepts such as cognitive radios and multistandard radios. SDRs can be
programmed and reprogrammed either locally or remotely to emulate a
variety of signal waveforms, communications protocols and etiquettes,
and can be continuously aware of their local position and radio
environment to intelligently and adaptively remold themselves into the
most appropriate device tuned to the time and place. SDRs can be
realized either as fast digital signal processors acting on a digitized
version of the signal, or as one of a variety of purpose built modules
selected and linked to cover various operating regimes. At the current
state of the art, it is not possible to build a totally general SDR, but
it is possible to include sufficient new functionality so that it is
appropriate to start revisiting the spectral allocation paradigm with an
eye toward introducing more of an etiquette based management scheme.

-   A SDR, in terms of its *transmitted waveform*, does not introduce
    any possibilities that were not previously possible with ordinary
    technology. SDRs can, in principle, recreate all known transmit
    waveforms including (in the future) UWB.

-   Although some radios today can be aware of their environment and can
    switch between transmit waveforms and protocols (e.g., dual mode
    cell phones ), the *scale* upon which SDRs could be environmentally
    aware and programmably adaptable does seem to qualify them as
    producing a quantum change in technology.

-   SDRs make it practical to consider replacing some spectral rules
    with etiquette based algorithms.

-   Technology is a moving target. Introducing etiquette will create yet
    another legacy for the future. We should clearly consider all
    options and benefits before moving to a new regulatory paradigm.

5.4 Software Defined Radio- *Action Items*

-   Do we need changes in regulation either permanent or experimental?
    What have been experiences with etiquette?

-   Does the current equipment authorization procedure impede new
    innovation?

5.5 Noise environment

The FCC needs to develop a more complete understanding the current state
of the radio noise environment. This issue is somewhat analogous to the
characterization of air pollution. Knowledge is needed to determine if
current rules are adequate, too restrictive, or are overlooking an
emerging crisis. As with the measurement of air pollution, measuring
everything is impossible, and haphazard sampling is inconclusive if not
useless. A very well thought out approach is needed.

-   A suggested approach, not unlike that used for air pollution, would
    have the following steps: (1)catalog the sources of radiation,(2)
    generate a theoretical model for the effect of each source, (3) use
    a controlled experiment to validate the individual models, (4) merge
    model predictions with a statistical census of sources and spot
    check with experimental data, (5) iterate and tune.

A proposal along these lines has been received. It should be understood
that the purpose of the proposal was to outline and calibrate the effort
that may be required, and in the event the activity is approved normal
procurement procedures will apply.

5.6 Noise environment -- *Action Items*

-   How much can we say about the noise floor without a large effort?
    What information exists today and how can we get it. Should we issue
    a call for any data which may be in private files and could be made
    available?

5.  Report of Interconnection and Network Access Focus Group and Group
    Discussion

Marvin Sirbu reported on progress of this focus group. The FCC has a
mandate to promote competition in the backbone network business, and
also stimulate the deployment of new competitive access networks with
advanced capabilities The lack of a generally available method of
allocating the total set of allowed end-to-end telecommunications
"impairments" can be perceived as an impediment to competition. These
impairments are, for example, transport and switching delay (latency),
message priorities, quality of service, number and kind of A/D/A
conversions and codings, and the like. Customers will demand that these
performance parameters be quoted in advance and then kept under control.
If standard metrics do not exist, and at the current time they do not,
then providers who are in complete control of the entire connection will
be incented to claim to their customers that only they can provide
reliable levels of performance. This is viewed as an impediment to
desired competition. If quality and performance measures are
standardized and the combining principles well understood, then networks
can be parsed into separately supplied segments with the assurance that
end-to-end connections will work with predictable characteristics.
Different entities can compete for each network segment with the
measurable performance of each component becoming a negotiable
commodity.

A similar situation exists for administrative messages which must be
passed between administrative domains for purposes of network management
and for the implementation of certain types of services. If such
messages and protocols are kept unique or proprietary, there will be a
strong disincentive for new entrants to offer components of network
services because they will be disadvantaged relative to the end-end
suppler. It is from this background that many of the TAC issues arise.

-   Without interconnection agreements it is hard even for a major
    supplier to deploy a new network because during the transition
    interim some tandeming of networks is inevitable.

-   There is likely significant industry interest in solving this
    problem in the private sector and the FCC needs to be aware of the
    current situation before attempting to mandate a solution

-   The industry should be given a chance to reach consensus on methods
    for QoS (quality of service) and SLAs (service level agreements) as
    a starting point for solving the general "any-to-any" problem.

-   The problem of feature interaction and the implementation of
    services using several vendors operating across administrative
    domains is related to this general problem and is a technically
    complex and not fully resolved issue.

-   Although the FCC is interested in promoting competition, it is
    beyond the mandate of the TAC to recommend ways of monitoring the
    market to see if an economically noncompetitive situation is
    developing.

6.1 Interconnection and Network Access - *Action Items*

-   What is the state of the art in QoS and SLAs ?

-   Can we begin to list *all* of the interdomain management issues?

-   What technologies exist to facilitate the deployment of open
    switching platforms?

-   What standards exist or are planned by various industry groups to
    address the interconnection problem?

-   What are the time scales proposed by industry to solve different
    parts of the interconnection problem? Will some sort of regulatory
    intervention serve a useful purpose?

-   Are current deployments in the access area (e.g., digital subscriber
    lines and cable modems) discouraging the deployment of more capable,
    futuristic alternatives, or are they a logical and necessary
    stepping stone to the "ultimate access network"?

6.  Report of Access to Telecommunications by Persons with Disabilities
    Focus Group and Group Discussion

A desirable outcome of the TAC work relating to Access to
Telecommunications by Persons with Disabilities would be a general
awareness and sensitivity to the problem by designers at the early
design stage, and a course of action which would allow them to include
attributes which would: allow accessibility to a broad spectrum of
people with one ore more disabilities; actually improve the value to the
general population (e.g., television's closed captions); and would not
devalue the product if not needed. Gregg Vanderheiden demonstrated some
examples of new access enabled systems which came close to fulfilling
all of these objectives. One proposed approach to motivating the work of
this focus group would be to first describe scenarios of how new telecom
services might develop, then analyze how difficulties with disabled
access might emerge. From this, more generic recommendations of how to
avoid similar problems could be for proposed.

-   There needs to be a more general understanding among the working
    group as to what the desired behaviors of customer equipment and
    networks are relative to this problem.

-   For each attribute proposed to enhance accessibility, there is
    usually a single, most appropriate place for implementation. We
    should use care so as to allow the solution set to impact only those
    parts of the communications chain where the benefit / cost is
    highest.

-   This problem is mainly a matter of issue awareness and motivation at
    the early stages of design.

-   Access is mainly an interface problem. We should start at the CPE
    and work our way up to the network.

-   There is a broad spectrum of disabilities, including compound
    disabilities. Access can not be provided for everyone. There needs
    to be an analysis of cost relative to the size of the population
    receiving benefit.

-   Some examples of cost are awareness training for both designers and
    craft, impact of myths and false steps, burdens placed on the
    nondisabled user, and tracking expenses of mandates and regulations.

-   Some regulatory intervention is probably necessary because the
    motivation to include access capabilities is not as strong as
    competing competitive pressures

7.1 Access to Telecommunications by Persons with Disabilities - *Action
Items*

-   Can we list the issues faced today and those that may emerge in the
    future?

-   What are the overarching principles relating to this issue?

Can we propose a road map to get from where we are now to where we want
to be? What should we do at each step?

##### Going Forward

Each focus group leader should summarize the action items as they see
them for their group, and specific actions should be assigned as an
individual responsibility to persons in the group for reporting at the
next meeting.

The next scheduled formal meeting is December 13,1999.

### Annex 1: Meeting Videotape

A VHS videotape of the September 22,1999 meeting serves as a set of
comprehensive minutes of that meeting. Copies of the tape can be
obtained from the Commission\'s contracted copier, ITS. It can be
reached through ITS' web page.

[http://www.itsdocs.com](http://www.itsdocs.com/)

or by phone at 202-857-3800

### 

### 

### Annex 2: Spectrum Management Group Status Report , September 22, 1999

## 

## ***A copy this presentation is at:***

##  **[http://[www.jacksons.net/tac/Status22Sept99.ppt](http://www.jacksons.net/tac/Status22Sept99.ppt)]{.underline}**

## 

## 

## [Terms of Reference]{.underline}

## Spectrum management issues generally

## Specifically

### Ultrawideband radio 

### Software defined radio (SDR)

### Noise environment

# [Benefits of Wireless]{.underline}

## Provides access to emergency services.

## Lowers costs.

## Changes the use of time.

## Creates new options.

### Observations of a prominent authority

# 

# [Organization]{.underline}

## Software radio 

### Kalle Kontson

## Ultrawideband radio 

### Dewayne L. Hendricks

## Noise environment 

### Dennis Roberson 

# [General Activities]{.underline}

## Web page

## Comments/White papers

# [Ultrawideband Radio Tasks]{.underline}

## Define the state of the art for ultrawideband radios.

## Project their likely evolution.

## Identify policy implications. 

## Do existing spectrum management policies inefficiently restrict the development or deployment of this technology?

# [Ultrawideband Activities]{.underline}

## Received White papers on Sept 15, 16.

### Posted on web site.

## Have had little discussion.

## Status of FCC proceeding

### Notice of Inquiry 1 Sept 98

### Comments (\~40) and reply comments (\~30)

#### Available at www.uwb.org/standards.htm

# [Software Radio Tasks]{.underline}

## Define state of the art for software radio.

## Project the likely evolution.

## Identify policy implications. 

### 5 to 15 years timeframe 

## Software radios should be read broadly to include concepts such as cognitive radios and multistandard radios. 

# [What is a Software Radio? Software Defined Radios]{.underline}

## Two different views

### Lucent/Bell Labs

#### We believe that the basic answer to the first question---Is the software radio a quantum improvement that will drive a new spectrum allocation paradigm using ultra wideband spreading ---is no. 

### Shrum, Kontson, Davis

#### An early, workable spectrum management policy for SDR and SWR is needed in the United States.

# [A Current Problem]{.underline}

## How will the FCC authority ensure that the "software" is correct initially and not modified later without authority to do so? 

## Downloading new user services

### How to ensure regulatory compliance?

## How can we simplify the certification for radios capable of operating on multiple standards or multiple modes?

# [A Future Issue]{.underline}

## The most significant, specific allocation issue for SDR may involve the \"control channel\" or "control algorithms" for negotiating spectrum access, downloading software changes, etc., as proposed by some in the IMT-2000 activity.

# Fundamental Issue: Certification

## Challenge to regulators

### The user or system operator can modify or completely reconfigure a system or system element.

### Modifications must be certifiable or trusted.

### Who should certify?

# [Recommendation A]{.underline}

## FCC should begin an inquiry regarding the implications of software radios.

### Regulatory framework

### National position for ITU, etc.

# [Recommendation B]{.underline} 

## FCC should establish a National SDR Planning Committee, pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, to advise the Commission on a variety of issues relating to spectrum management and regulation of radio systems using SDR and related new technologies. 

# Planning Committee Responsibilities

## Formulate detailed views for the FCC's inquiry.

## Recommend technical standards and certification procedures.

## Provide long-term policy recommendations on the use of software radio technology to achieve significant improved efficiencies in the use of the radio frequency spectrum.

# [Recommendation C]{.underline} 

## FCC and NTIA, in cooperation with industry, user groups and associations, Federal agencies, and other involved parties, should organize and support experiments involving the design, application, and actual spectrum-use demonstrations of SDR technology to provide critical input to the development of appropriate national spectrum management and access policy.

# [Discussion]{.underline}

## FCC Notice of Inquiry

## FCC Planning Committee

## FCC/NTIA/Others experiments

# [RF Noise Environment Tasks]{.underline}

## Summarize current knowledge on noise levels.

## Identify the effects of noise on the reliability of communications systems. 

## Identify man-made noise that causes harm. 

## Identify issues or causes of man made electromagnetic noise that justify FCC attention or action. 

## Suggest technical approaches for obtaining sufficient information on the subject.

# Noise Environment Activities

## Two drafts of paper by Roberson

## Proposal by IITRE

# [Roberson's Points]{.underline}

## The state of knowledge of electromagnetic noise levels

## Man-made causes of noise affecting wireless communications 

## The effects of noise on current and future communications systems

## Issues and causes of interference that justify FCC attention

## Types of noise causing concern and approaches for gaining sufficient information on them

# [Proposal]{.underline}

## IITRE proposal for literature survey

# [Discussion]{.underline}

## Does the TAC support funding of project like in proposal by NTIA, NSF, DOD, etc.?

## Does the TAC recommend that FCC issue NOI on certification issues for software radios?

# [Additional Topics]{.underline}

## Should any elements of ultrawideband or software defined radio technology should be demonstrated or otherwise presented to FCC?

## Are there important complementary technologies deserving mention?

###  

Annex 3: FCC staff

*FCC staff available to address questions from the TAC:*

Contact Stagg Newman as the DFO. With respect to specific Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) questions, a resident expert is FCC
attorney:

Paula Silberthau, at: PSILBERT@fcc.gov

Phone 202-418-1874

Additional FACA information is at the Office of Government Policy web
page at:

[http://www.policyworks.gov](http://www.policyworks.gov/)

**Annex 4: Focus groups , moderator, and group web addresses for
interaction.**

Spectrum Management (Charles L. Jackson, moderator)

<http://www.jacksons.net/tac>

Jules Bellisio jules@research.telcordia.com

Bran Ferren bran@disney.com

Christine Hemrick hemrick@cisco.com

Dewayne L. Hendricks dewayne@com21.com

Charles L. Jackson chuck@jacksons.net

Kalle Kontson kkontson@iitri.org

William C. Y. Lee william.lee@airtouch.com

Wah L. Lim wah.lim@hsc.com

Robert L. Martin bobmartin@lucent.com

Glenn Reitmeier greitmeier@sarnoff.com

Dennis Roberson Dennis.Roberson@motorola.com

Patrick White white.patrick@adlittle.com

Accessibility for Disabled Persons (Gregg Vanderheiden, moderator)

<http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/fccadv/disability.htm>

Jose M. Alvarez Caban jalvarez@coqui.net

Jules Bellisio jules@research.telcordia.com

Vinton G. Cerf vcerf@mci.net

Susan Estrada sestrada@aldea.com

Bran Ferren bran@disney.com

Dewayne L. Hendricks dewayne@com21.com

Charles L. Jackson chuck@jacksons.net

Paul F. Liao pliao@research.panasonic.com

David C. Nagel nagel@ipo.att.com

Gregg C. Vanderheiden gv@trace.wisc.edu

John F. Waters jack.waters@level3.com

Robert M. Zitter robert.zitter@hbo.com

Network Interconnection and Access (Marvin Sirbu, moderator)

[http://www-fcc.ini.cmu.edu/FCC/index.html](http://www.ini.cmu.edu/FCC/index.html)

Jules Bellisio jules@research.telcordia.com

Vinton G. Cerf vcerf@mci.net

Susan Estrada sestrada@aldea.com

Bran Ferren bran@disney.com

Christine Hemrick hemrick@cisco.com

Dewayne L. Hendricks dewayne@com21.com

Ross Ireland ross@pacbell.com

Paul F. Liao pliao@research.panasonic.com

Wah L. Lim wah.lim@hsc.com

Robert L. Martin bobmartin@lucent.com

David C. Nagel nagel@ipo.att.com

Glenn Reitmeier greitmeier@sarnoff.com

Dennis Roberson Dennis.Roberson@motorola.com

Marvin Sirbu sirbu@cmu.edu

Gregg C. Vanderheiden gv@trace.wisc.edu

John F. Waters jack.waters@level3.com

Patrick White white.patrick@adlittle.com

Robert M. Zitter robert.zitter@hbo.com

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_