Report : Sixth Meeting of the FCC Technological Advisory Council

0.0 Executive Overview

# The Federal Communications Commission Technological Advisory Council (FCC TAC) held its sixth meeting on Wednesday, September 27, 2000 in Washington, D.C. As described in previous meeting reports, the Council is to provide scientifically supportable information on those emerging technologies likely to fundamentally impact the work of the FCC. The TAC is currently organized into 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. 

The TAC Charter will soon expire. For the council to continue, it must
vote to continue. It was resolved that it be recommended to the FCC that
the TAC be extended for another term. The membership and specific
objectives of the next TAC group will be determined when and if the FCC
agrees to renew the TAC Charter.

The FCC's Office of Plans and Policy just released the Working Paper
"*The Digital Handshake: Connecting Internet Backbones*" by Michael
Kende, Director of Internet Policy Analysis. Mr. Kende gave an overview
of his study which examines the interconnection arrangements between
Internet backbone providers that lead to the universal connectivity that
characterizes the Internet.

George H. Hagn presented the talk: *Perspectives on Man-Made Radio Noise
in the New Millennium.* He confirmed that because there was no
systematic and comprehensive collection of noise data available, the
proposed TAC noise study would be a very worthwhile effort. Until this
information is organized and analyzed, we are not certain of the changes
that might be proposed.

The Spectrum Management Focus Group is organized into three working
subgroups. Previously, a resolution was adopted whereby individual TAC
members or their companies would give funds to the FCC for the purpose
of facilitating the *noise environment subgroup's* noise floor study.
The minimum amount of about \$100,000 estimated for the first phase
literature search has now been committed. The gifts of the actual funds
will now be made as expediently as practicable so that the performer can
be designated and tasked before the end of the year. The National
Science Foundation (NSF) will handle the actual project management.

The *software defined radio (SDR) subgroup* reminded us that the SDR and
*cognitive* *radio* can be viewed as an evolution whereby the human
radio operator is replaced by programmed intelligence in the radio. The
SDR should be understood to be not just a device for emulating existing
waveforms under software control, but a device which is aware of its
surroundings and can support etiquettes and protocols to make optimum
use of the available spectrum. The SDR subgroup proposes a three phase
attack on the regulatory structure for the introduction of the SDR: the
restructuring of the equipment authorization process; the building of a
license overlay/underlay process; and finally the incremental
introduction of SDR-enabled overlays on spectrum allocations as
opportunities arise and auctions occur, ultimately replacing licensing
and allocation. In the end, we need to migrate towards operating
principles that are derived from a very high point of view. We have
called this the "Wireless Bill of Rights" that would be the permanent
basis for the governance of all intelligent devices. The target is to
create a document which, like the original Bill, could remain relevant
for hundreds of years. Progress has been made in identifying fundamental
guiding principles so as to produce a compelling one-page document, not
a rule book.

Of concern to the *ultrawideband (UWB) subgroup* is a growing sense that
there is already excessive interference and congestion in the Part 15
bands even without the addition of UWB, a spectral overlay technology.
Anecdotes abound about interference and incompatibilities causing
otherwise perfect devices to fail in unexpected ways. At a previous TAC
meeting, we decided to study the issue of Part 15 congestion. As
reported, in the first phase the problem was sized, facts gathered, and
other TAC members brought up to speed on the issues. Interference
complaints are not an indication of the failure of Part 15, but rather
are the result of the enormous popularity and innovative usage that has
been stimulated by the success of unlicensed operation. We should devise
a philosophy that relieves some of the interference but continues to
allow innovation to flourish. As a start on this, some "rules of the
road" were proposed which embody the spirit of the kind of etiquette
that we are trying to promulgate.

The approach the Access to Telecommunications by Persons with
Disabilities Focus group is taking fits into three categories:
identification and exploration of issues and options; identification and
creation of awareness points (problems from the past that we can learn
from); and descriptions of future scenarios (what might be coming and
what the implications for people with disabilities might be). Most of
the discussion at this meeting involved the description of seven future
scenarios which will become practical as costs of processors, memory and
speech analyzers/synthesizers drop. General awareness of the issue of
accessibility for the disabled and the incentive to check for
incompatibilities at the design stage may pose the largest problems.

The next formal TAC meeting will be on Wednesday, December 6, 2000.

Prepared by J. A. Bellisio

Approved by R.W. Lucky

October 22, 2000

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

1.0 Introduction

As announced, the sixth meeting of the FCC TAC took place on Wednesday,
September 22, 2000 at The Portals, 445 S. 12th Street, SW., Washington,
D.C. Alternate Designated Federal Officer (DFO) Mr. Dale Hatfield,
Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications
Commission, opened the meeting. Mr. David Farber, DFO, joined the
meeting shortly thereafter. This report is a reorganization and
distillation of discussions at that meeting written to facilitate the
work of the Council. A complete videotape of the meeting serves as the
verbatim minutes (see Annex 1).This report reviews the presentations and
remarks made at the open meeting, but does not, per se, necessarily
represent the final recommendations of the TAC as a whole.

The mission and operating principles of the TAC were described in the
Report of the First Meeting of the TAC (April 30, 1999), 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 sixth meeting, the
activities of each of the groups was reviewed. 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 6.*

The next formal TAC meeting will be on Wednesday, December 6, 2000.

2.0 Agenda as Announced

TECHNOLOGICAL ADVISORY COUNCIL

Agenda -Sixth Meeting

# **Wednesday, September 27, 2000**

Federal Communications Commission Meeting Room

The Portals, 445 12TH Street, SW

Washington, D.C.

10:00 AM Opening and Remarks by Designated

> Federal Officer David Farber, DFO

10:20 AM Introductions of Council Members

> with Brief Remarks Council Members

10:30 AM Discussion and Motion Relative to

> Continuation of TAC Chair Bob Lucky

10:40 AM Report on Noise Floor Study Funding. Jules Bellisio

10:45 AM Invited Briefing: \"Perspectives on

> Man-Made Radio Noise.\" George Hagn

11:15 AM Report of Spectrum Focus Group Charles Jackson

12:00 N Break

1:00 PM Report of Access to Telecommunications

by Persons with Disabilities Focus Group Gregg Vanderheiden

2:00 PM Invited Briefing on Interconnection TBD by Marvin Sirbu

2:30 PM Report of Interconnection and Network Marvin Sirbu

> Access Focus Group

2:40 PM Assignments, Organization and Chair Bob Lucky

> Going Forward

3:00 PM Wrap Up - Meeting Adjourned David Farber, DFO

3.0 Membership of the Technological Advisory Council

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

***TAC Chairperson***:

Dr. Bob Lucky -- Corporate Vice President, Applied Research, Telcordia
Technologies

*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
Telcordia Fellow, Executive Director, Applied Research, Telcordia
Technologies

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

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

\*Mr. Bran Ferren -- President, Applied Minds

Dr. Richard Green -- President and CEO, CableLabs

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

Mr. Dewayne Hendricks -- CEO, Dandin Group

Mr. Ross Ireland -- Senior Vice President, Network Planning &
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, Corporate Technology and Ventures, Hughes
Electronics Corporation

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

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

\*Dr. Stagg Newman -- Senior Telecommunications Practice Expert,
McKinsey and Company

\*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 -- Chief Technology Officer, Level 3 Communications.

\*Dr. Pat White - Senior Advisor, Safeguard Scientifics, Inc

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

*Designated Federal Officer*

Mr. David Farber, Chief Technologist, Federal Communications Commission.

*Alternate Designated Federal Officer*

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

\**Not present at sixth meeting.*

About 40 members of the public observed the meeting and comments from
the public are reported as appropriate.

4.0 Summary of Remarks by Representatives of the FCC

Mr. Hatfield, in his introductory remarks, expressed his appreciation to
the TAC for the time and effort they have dedicated to the study of
complex issues, for aiding the commission in its understanding of
emerging changes in the technology, and for helping in the decision
making process. Mr. Furchtgott-Roth added that the TAC has proven
extremely valuable to the Commission's work. He remarked that the TAC
was needed now because for the first fifty years of the Commission's
existence the pace of change of technology was small as compared to
today and that problems seemed to be better defined. Experience has
shown that government efforts to totally define and micromanage the
workings of our dynamic industry are doomed to failure, and we should be
skeptical of processes which assume that all aspects can be determined
with perfect exactitude. A more realistic approach would be to try to be
wise enough to simply avoid catastrophic mistakes.

4.1 Concerns of TAC Members

The Chair asked members of the TAC to comment on what they felt was
their main issue of concern as it related either to their job
responsibility or to the FCC.

Estrada: Making sure that the FCC, in a regulatory sense, continues to
"ignore" the Internet for the time being and allows it to continue to
develop naturally.

Green: The structure of digital television, and the interconnection of
networks.

Hemrick: The problems cased by the intersection of the Internet and the
needs of public service and law enforcement, as characterized by the
modern equivalent of wiretapping.

Hendricks: Proving that the software defined radio is not science
fiction. (Mr. Hendricks demonstrated a low cost working model SDR that
is becoming popular with the amateur radio community.)

Ireland: Concern that the introduction of new technology by large
carriers will be slower than desirable because of the need to abide by a
legacy of rules.

Jackson: With respect to spectral licensing, a key task of the FCC,
there are the issues of international harmonization to enable
world-interoperable devices, and the most effective balancing of a
property rights based regime with the efficient use of unlicensed bands.

Kontson: Spectral harmonization and balancing of uses.

Liao: Discovering the means to expand the use of spectrum, especially
unlicensed; and, balancing the imperatives of information sharing with
that of copyright ownership.

Lim: The number one issue is spectrum availability.

Roberson: The demand for spectrum for cellular, and getting ahead of
this issue for 4G (fourth generation wireless).

Sirbu: The alignment of new services and technologies with the existing
categories of the regulation legacy.

Vanderheiden: Acting early enough and effectively enough to prevent
people with disabilities from being cut off from society as the world
becomes more dependent on technology.

Waters: Interconnection and ways to do it transparently.

Zitter: Translating technology into things that consumers actually want.
Converting from the classically "linear" form of entertainment to an
interactive environment, and protecting property rights.

Bellisio: An effective means of exploiting the cognitive radio idea for
the widespread implementation of contention based spectral usage.

Lucky: Grappling with the dichotomy between the pace of technological
change and the constraints of the embedded base of rules and equipment
that we are forced to live with.

5.  Continuation of the TAC

The Charter of this council, the FCC TAC, expires at the end of this
year (2000). For the council to remain in existence, it must vote to
continue. It is expected that there will be a natural rotation of about
half of the members, but the current members are expected to consider
both the recommendation for continuance and improvements that might be
considered.

It was agreed that the TAC was performing a useful function and that
many of its findings have been influential although expectations of the
level of deliverables may have been optimistic. The group experimented
with several methods of working, and future members will benefit from
this experience. We now have a better idea of the kinds of things that
the TAC can impact, are evolving toward an efficient working
methodology, and need to complete several tasks in progress.

5.1 Resolution of Continuation

It was resolved unanimously (by all TAC members present) that it be
recommended to the FCC that the TAC be extended for another term. The
membership and specific objectives of the next TAC group will be
determined when and if the FCC agrees to renew the TAC Charter.

6.  Report on Noise Floor Study Funding

At the June 28, 2000 TAC meeting a resolution was adopted whereby
individual members or their companies would give funds to the FCC for
the purpose of facilitating a noise floor study. As reported at this
meeting, the minimum amount of about \$100,000 estimated for the first
phase literature search has now been committed. It is imperative that
the gifts of the actual funds now be made as expediently as feasible
(during the week of October 2, 2000 or as soon thereafter as
practicable) so that the identification of the performer and the
procurement of the study can be completed before the end of the year.

To facilitate the gift giving, a model gift transmittal letter, *annex
2*, has been prepared. The letter indicates that an unrestricted gift is
being made to the FCC, but suggests the gift be used to facilitate the
noise study. Checks should be made out to "The Federal Communications
Commission" in the amount of the pledge, but for administrative
convenience sent to the TAC Executive Director who will then repost them
as a unit to the FCC.

Annex 3 is a letter from Sheldon M. Guttmann, Esq., Associate General
Counsel of the FCC to Dr. Lucky clarifying a couple matters related to
the resolution whereby members decided to contribute funds necessary to
support a study of the noise floor and to gift those funds to the FCC.

The members and organizations who currently have commitments to FCC TAC
Noise Study are:

Dr. Bob Lucky, Dr. Jules A. Bellisio --Telcordia Technologies

Ms. Susan Estrada --Aldea Communication

Dr. Richard Green --CableLabs

Ms. Christine Hemrick -Cisco Systems, Inc.

Mr. Dewayne Hendricks --Dandin Group

Mr. Ross Ireland --SBC.

Dr. Charles E. Jackson --Consultant.

Mr. Kalle Kontson --IIT Research Institute .

### Dr. Paul Liao --Panasonic Technologies. 

Dr. Wah Lim --Hughes Electronics

Dr. Robert Martin --Lucent.

Mr. Dennis Roberson --Motorola. .

Mr. Robert Zitter --Home Box Office.

**6.1 Noise study - *Action Items***

The Executive Director will immediately distribute specific procedures
to the TAC for collection of contributions, and contributors will act as
quickly as practicable on this matter.

7.  Report of Interconnection and Network Access Focus Group

The Federal Communications Commission's Office of Plans and Policy (OPP)
released the 32nd in its OPP Working Paper Series, entitled "The Digital
Handshake: Connecting Internet Backbones." The paper, authored by
Michael Kende, (<mkende@fcc.gov>) Director of Internet Policy Analysis
in the Office of Plans and Policy, examines the interconnection
arrangements between Internet backbone providers that lead to the
universal connectivity that characterizes the Internet. Mr. Kende was
invited to give an overview of his study to brief the TAC on some of the
current issues on interconnection.

Since its commercialization in 1995, the Internet has served as an
example of a network industry in which interconnection agreements are
reached through commercial negotiations in a "handshake," rather than a
regulated, environment. This paper offers a primer describing the
existing Internet interconnection agreements -- notably peering
arrangements -- which have arisen in place of traditional regulation.
The paper concludes that competition governed by antitrust laws and
competition enforcement can prevent the emergence of a dominant firm,
and can act to restrain the actions of larger backbones in place of any
industry-specific regulations such as interconnection obligations. If a
dominant backbone provider should emerge through unforeseen
circumstances, however, regulation may be necessary as it has been in
other network industries. Any future calls to overturn the status quo
and impose interconnection regulations on Internet backbone providers
bear the burden of identifying the harms that would be remedied as well
as identifying a focused means for resolving these harms.

The complete paper can be found at:
<http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OPP/working_papers/oppwp32.pdf>

7.1 Interconnection and Network Access Group Discussion

There was a general consensus that we should guard against regulation,
especially with respect to the Internet, except in those case where it
is clearly demonstrated that market forces will not lead to a desirable
environment. Market forces may act more slowly than the pace of
technological change, but eventually they *do* work and in a very
powerful way. Also, regulations should not logically be promulgated in
those areas where there is no proof that the objective has the requisite
technical underpinnings, e.g., today there is probably no fully
developed QoS (quality of service) methodology ready to support
regulation in this area. Jack Waters of Level3 noted that because of the
importance of transparency and fairness, his organization has publicly
published its peering policy at:
<http://www.level3.com/us/info/network/interconnection/> .

8.0 Invited Briefing on Radio Noise

George H. Hagn was invited to present the talk: *Perspectives on
Man-Made Radio Noise in the New Millennium.* Annex 4 is an abstract of
the talk. Mr. Hagn has a wealth of experience with this topic and
explained how different methods of analyzing noise have unfortunately
yielded different results through the years. He confirmed that because
there was no systematic and comprehensive collection of noise data
available, the proposed TAC noise study would be a very worthwhile
effort. Until this information is organized and analyzed , the FCC will
not have a firm basis for deciding whether current noise standards are
too tight, too loose or maybe even just right. It is telling that at
this point we are not certain of the size of the changes that might be
proposed.

9.0 Report of Spectrum Focus Group

With a solution found to the funding and management issues associated
with the noise floor study (as proposed and described in previous
reports), work is expected to begin shortly after the collection of
funds. (See Sec.6.0.) It is expected that the NSF (National Science
Foundation) will act in a management capacity for the project and will
arrange for the scientific peer review of the results.

Charles Jackson introduced the reports produced by the Spectrum
Management Working Group which are summarized here. The group is divided
into three working subgroups: noise environment with activities reported
above; software defined radios; and ultrawideband. The roundtable
discussions of the meeting were organized around each of these areas.
Full versions of the presentation visuals can be found at
<http://www.jacksons.net/tac/> .

9.1 Software Defined Radios and Future Spectrum Management Regulations

Kalle Kontson reported on software defined radios (SDR). The advent of
the SDR and of the *cognitive* *radio* can be viewed as an evolution
whereby the human radio operator is replaced by programmed intelligence
in the radio. The SDR should be understood to be not just a device for
emulating existing waveforms under software control, but a device which
is aware of its surroundings and can instantiate etiquettes and
protocols to make optimum use of the available spectrum.

![](media/image1.wmf){width="5.633333333333334in"
height="3.6444444444444444in"}

### Fig. 1: Evolution Of The "Radio Operator"... From Man To Microchips

Since the March meeting, the SDR subgroup has refocused its efforts on
four key continuing actions, and progress in each area was reported:

-   Flesh Out Some "Part X" Content (Our term for a new regulatory part)

-   Expand on Authorization Alternatives

-   Expand on Alternatives to Auctions

-   Track and Contribute to FCC NOI (Notice of Inquiry)

The specification of SDR experimental scenarios and possible work with
DoD (Department of Defense) to do experiments, as proposed previously,
has been deferred for the present.

The SDR is now viewed as a powerful, enabling technology. How do we best
harness and regulate that power? There is a growing view that new
methods are needed. Some recent developments of interest in this area
are:

-   In a public forum on secondary markets, Chairman Kennard supported
    the idea that the SDR was a viable way to make better use of
    spectrum.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   There is growing interest in industry, public safety, and military
    SDR usage.

-   There was the SDR Notice of Inquiry.

-   There are other TAC issues and objectives closely related to SDR,
    for example:

-   Noise floor study and analysis.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Part 15 interference survey.

-   Receiver regulation/standards discussions.

-   "Bill of Rights" vs. "Ten Commandments" approach to regulation and
    new protocols and etiquettes.

There are some general observations we can make on the SDR:

-   It is an implementation technology and opportunity

-   It is not a service or substitute for spectrum management.

-   There is potential for much greater spectrum efficiency and
    interoperability.

-   It is a necessary ingredient for the implementation of secondary
    markets in spectrum.

-   SDR introduces intelligent behavior into the radio

-   Software affects both the radio control and the deployment of
    applications and services.

-   The IQ of the average radio is following some sort of Moore's law.

-   The SDR challenges us to define the evolutionary path toward a
    future regulatory environment that is governed by an "Intelligent
    Device Bill of Rights".

Looking at the NOI responses, we can site some "nuggets" that overall
reveal a wealth of information and insight.

-   Timeframe: A year or two away, or five to ten? There is a large
    range of opinion, some of it resulting from differences between the
    view of the SDR as a waveform emulator, vs. a new kind of
    intelligent device.

-   Interoperability: a promising attribute that all agree on.

-   Spectrum sharing: reactions range from denial that it could or
    should ever happen, to fear and loathing of widespread harms, to
    unbridled enthusiasm.

-   Spectral efficiency: some doubt about how real it will be but
    predictions are generally optimistic.

-   Regulation and authorization: Disagreement as whether we need more,
    less, or the same.

-   Security and integrity: Cryptography / PKI (Public Key
    Infrastructure) may be needed, but this is not a well developed
    issue.

The SDR subgroup proposes a three phase attack on the regulatory
structure for the introduction of the SDR:

> 1\. Restructuring of the equipment authorization process

-   Objective: add "trusted software assurance" into process.

> 2\. Building of a license overlay/underlay process

-   Incremental introduction of rule sets

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Rule sets must be consumable by "authorized" SDRs.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Rule sets implement real-time sharing with existing licensees.

-   Band-by-band introduction of overlays/Secondary Markets.

> 3\. The incremental introduction of SDR-enabled overlays on spectrum
> allocations as opportunities arise and auctions occur (and, as courage
> permits) − ultimately replacing licensing and allocation

In the following sections, we expand upon these three proposed phases of
events.

*Phase 1*:

Trusted authorization and modification of Part 2 of regulations (Part
2X)

-   Initially the FCC should *expand* regulation in this area

-   Add to the existing Part 2 requirements:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Receiver standards compliance.

-   Software assurance (trusted radio behavior assurance).

-   The radio must be able to hear and obey according to rule sets -
    consistently and rationally - or it fails.

-   The software/hardware combination is tested with the spectrum access
    rule sets for each band or service for which it is applying (Rule
    sets can be extremely simple or very complex; thus the radio can be
    dumb as dirt or very smart).

> Trusted authorization -- Implementation
>
> *RF parameter control software should be certified through TCBs
> (Telecommunications Certification Bodies, as certified by the FCC).*
>
> The FCC should*:*

-   Define new or expanded "scopes of equipment "

-   Add SDR "extensions" to existing scopes? (This may not cover all
    cases).

-   Charter TCBs for SDR certification capability, both for:

-   Transmitter and receiver compliance.

-   Rule set execution integrity compliance.

-   Develop representative spectrum access rule sets as guidance to the
    TCBs for developing the certification capability.

Trusted authorization -- the payoff.

-   Provides trusted behaviors in shared spectrum environments (overlays
    or underlays).

-   Accommodates SDR software certification in response to new spectrum
    access rule sets, and supports incremental introduction of trusted
    radios as rule sets are approved and promulgated.

So, now that we have a way to trust the radio, exactly what constitutes
a "spectrum access rule set"?

*Phase 2:* Enabling Incremental Overlays and "Disabling Licensing"

> The focus of Phase 2: Incremental implementation of spectrum sharing
> on a non-interference basis, with etiquette-based control rules. This
> will be a good method of implementing secondary markets. This phase
> should be enabled by two universally accessible information bases that
> must be approved and promulgated by the FCC:

-   Licensed operator data base (Web or network accessible, on a
    near-real-time basis).

-   Spectrum access rules sets (embedded or Web/network accessible).

As an example of how this might work, consider the scenario of Figure 2
where a hypothetical emergency vehicle makes a call for bandwidth to
relay vital video information.

![](media/image2.wmf){width="5.575in" height="4.214583333333334in"}

Fig. 2: Phase 2 Example -- *Emergency Use of TV Bands*

What would be a sample rule set for this example of TV Band Sharing?

-   Max. power density allowed is XX dBm/Hz, EIRPd, in "shared"
    channels; YY dBm/Hz in all other channels.

-   Must be at least 20 miles outside Grade B contour of "shared"
    co-channel licensed, operational TV stations, 10 miles for adjacent
    channel, etc.(GPS would be good here).

-   Must be coordinated (NIB) with other Secondary Market users such
    that:

-   at least 50 miles from other user, *or*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   "Trusted" coordination validates NIB(Trusted coordination algorithms
    defined by FCC).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Rental rates must be published and reasonable.

Incremental Overlays and "Disabling Licensing" (*Phase 2*): Advantages
and Risks:

-   Enables evolutionary path to encroach on traditional licensing and
    allocation regimes - band by band, service by service

-   Pace can be tailored to technology and business climate.

-   Provides a mechanism for reeling in the unlicensed bands.

-   Establishes spectrum sharing practice that can include public
    safety, civil government and military agencies

-   Military has a significant investment in SDR.

-   Something to gain from interoperability and flexibility.

-   Places more regulatory burden on FCC, not less.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Could result in negative reaction by current licensees.

*Phase 3:* Migrating Toward the Intelligent Device Bill of Rights

-   Set out a deliberate and aggressive plan to introduce secondary
    markets based on spectrum sharing in all possible bands.

-   Get some lawyers together to structure future auctions that require
    open access and secondary markets as a central element. (There is
    plenty of money to be made by operating infrastructure and services
    without exclusive ownership of the spectrum.)

A possible impact on auctions: new legal constructs for spectrum

-   Auctions based on spectrum husbandry, not ownership

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Auction the right to build infrastructure and extract revenue.
    (Operator revenue based not only on proprietary infrastructure
    access, but also on spectrum access brokering services.)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Operator "license" is to:

> 1\. Operate proprietary infrastructure;
>
> 2\. Offer spectrum broker services for the "licensed" spectrum on an
> open access basis, i.e., secondary market in "licensed" spectrum;
>
> 3\. Offer other secondary market spectrum brokering services for
> spectrum in the public domain (such as unused TV channels).

-   FCC commitment to publish and maintain information bases and
    spectrum access rule sets to enable sharing.

The endgame: Toward the *Wireless Device Bill of Rights*?

9.2 The "Software Defined Radio Bill of Rights"

As described in previous meeting reports, as we move into an era of
software defined *everything*, we need to construct SDR operating
principles that are derived from a somewhat higher point of view than we
have been considering up until now. By analogy to the Federal
Constitution which provides a timeless and robust framework upon which
all other laws can be tested, we need a "Bill of Rights" that would be
the permanent basis for the governance of all intelligent devices. It
would guide the responsibilities, obligations, rights and behavior of
such devices so as to provide for both freedom of action and respect for
the rights of humans and of other like devices.

The following is a first cut for discussion of the *Bill* as proposed by
the SDR subgroup.

Article 1: Any intelligent wireless device may, on a non-interference
basis, use any frequency, frequencies or bandwidth, at any time, to
perform its function.

> Article 1, Tenet 1: To exercise rights under this Article, intelligent
> devices must be mentally competent to accurately determine the
> possibility of interference that may result from their use of the
> spectrum, and have the moral character to not do so if that
> possibility might infringe on the rights of other users.
>
> Article 1, Tenet 2: To exercise rights under this Article, intelligent
> devices must actively use the wireless spectrum within the minimum
> time, spatial and bandwidth constraints necessary to accomplish the
> function. Squatting on spectrum is strictly prohibited.

Article 2: All users of the spectrum shall have the right to operate
without harmful electromagnetic interference from other users.

> Article 2, Tenet 1: Priority of rights under this Article may be
> determined by the proper authorities only in cases of National
> emergency, safety of life or situations of extreme public interest.
>
> Article 2, Tenet 2: Rights under this Article may be exercised only
> when the systems exercising the rights are designed , as determined by
> the state of the practice, to be reasonably resistant to interference.

Article 3: All licensing, auctioning, selling or otherwise disposition
of the rights to frequencies and spectrum usage shall be subordinate to
, and controlled by Articles 1 and 2, above.

9.3 Bill of Rights Initiative *-- Action Items*

The objective of this activity is to produce a compelling one-page
document, not a rule book. This is an ongoing activity open to all who
care to participate. Persons interested in supporting this activity
should contact either Bran Ferren (
[bran@appliedminds.net](../bran@appliedminds.net) ) or the TAC Executive
Director ( <jules@research.telcordia.com> ). Bran should arrange to have
a website for this group.

**9.4 Ultrawideband Radio (UWB)**

Weighing heavily on the decision to allow the approval of UWB, a
spectral overlay technology, is a growing sense that there is already
excessive interference and congestion in the Part 15 bands. Anecdotes
abound about interference and incompatibilities causing otherwise
perfect devices to fail in unexpected ways. At a previous TAC meeting,
we decided to study the issue of Part 15 congestion. In the first phase
we size up the problem, gather facts, bring other TAC members up to
speed on the problem, then determine where to take the study next.

An example of concern is the desire to use r-f for light fixture
excitation. These are Part 18 (ISM) devices that operate in 2400-2500
MHz ISM band, centered on 2450 MHz with *very* high power levels
in-band. To highlight the problem we quote the following filing from a
Part 15 manufacture's statement of the RF Lighting Docket: "In some
cases, compliant direct sequence and frequency hopping systems can be
further hardened against limited levels of interference, but only to the
extent that the emission characteristics of the interference are known
in advance. All measures vary in their effectiveness according to the
nature, strength and predictability of the interfering signal, and they
all come at a cost."

In a recent statement, Chairman Kennard said: "All of the new
technologies -- mobile phones, faxed, wireless computers -- are
consuming spectrum faster than we can make it available, and we are in
danger of a spectrum drought. We need to find spectrum to build the web
of wireless applications that will continue to fuel our economic growth.
The demand for spectrum is simply outstripping supply."

Mr. Kennard proposed the following objectives:

-   Establish as a goal that spectrum become like any other commodity
    that flows fluidly in the marketplace.

-   Look to technology to provide better spectrum management tools, for
    example, ultrawideband and software-define radios.

-   Promote greater spectrum efficiency.

The issues outlined above are not an indication of the failure of Part
15, but rather are the result of the enormous popularity and innovative
usage that has been stimulated by the success of unlicensed operation.
We should devise a philosophy that relieves some of the interference but
continues to allow innovation to flourish. As a start on this, we can
propose some colloquial "rules of the road" which embody the spirit of
the kind of etiquette that we are trying to promulgate.:

-   Rule #1. Keep away from the big bullies in the playground. (Avoid
    the strongest signals.)

-   Rule #2. Share your toys. (Minimize your transmitted power. Use the
    shortest hop distances feasible. Minimize average power density per
    Hertz.)

-   Rule #3. If you have nothing to say, keep quiet. (Advice not limited
    to radio.) Don't transmit to "squat" on a band just to keep it clear
    for later use.

-   Rule #4. Don't pick on the big kids. (Don't step on strong signals.
    You're going to get clobbered.)

-   Rule #5. Don't get too close to your neighbor. (Even the weakest
    signals are very strong when they are shouted in your ear).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Rule #6. If you feel you absolutely must beat up somebody, be sure
    to pick someone smaller than yourself. (Now the basis for this is
    less obvious. Weak signals represent far away transmissions, so your
    signals will likely be attenuated the same amount in the reverse
    direction and probably not cause significant interference.)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Rule #7. Lastly, don't be a cry baby. (If you insist on using
    obsolete technology that is highly sensitive to interfering signals,
    don't expect much sympathy when you complain about interfering
    signals in a shared band.)

TAC will continue to work on the current FCC initiatives of UWB, SDR,
and secondary markets. Some of these "road rules" can be recast into
articles for the Bill of Rights.

**10.0 Report of Access to Telecommunications by Persons with
Disabilities Focus Group and Group Discussion**

The approach the focus group is taking fits into three categories:

-   Identification and exploration of issues and options

-   Identification and creation of awareness points -- problems from the
    past that we can learn from.

-   Descriptions of future scenarios -- What might be coming and what
    the implications for people with disabilities might be.

Most of the discussion at this meeting involved the description of
future scenarios. The technology scenarios -- present to future -- that
were described were:

-   Silent messaging -- a TTY (teletypewriter) feature in digital
    cellular phones

-   Captioned telephone conversations -- CapTel

-   The "Try Harder" concept

-   Interpretation on demand - Listening Pen -- Instant Captioning

-   Remote sign language interpretation

-   Morphed signers and talkers -- virtual communication skills

-   Assistance on demand - auditory, visual and cognitive

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Cognitive assistant on demand − "The Companion" -- A concept piece

Some of these new developments will be described.

***Silent Messaging*** -- TTY feature in digital cellular phones

Start with a standard cell phone with built-in solution for TTY
compatibility

-   These recognize TTY tones coming in the headset jack and convert
    them into a form for transmission over the voice channel of phone.

-   Phones also receive data incoming to the phone and change it into
    TTY tones to send out the headset jack (to TTY).

-   Phone *could also* display (on phone's display) any TTY data coming
    to the phone. It would allow people who are deaf and can speak to
    use any phone.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *If* phone has any character typing technique or small keypad -- it
    *could also* allow user to send TTY text from the phone. It would
    allow any deaf individual to use the phone without needing a TTY.

***Captioned telephone conversations*** -- **CapTel**

-   CapTel phone looks like an ordinary phone with an LCD display at
    top

-   User picks up phone-- pushes "CAPTION" button -- then dials number

-   They hear the person on the other end answer the phone and talk to
    them just as with a typical phone.

-   *But* they also see what the other person is saying displayed on the
    LCD display.

*How* CapTel *works (basically)*

-   When you press the caption button -- the CapTel phone routes the
    call through a special service center.

-   An operator listens to the other person's speech and re-voices it
    into a computer that does speech recognition.

-   The text and the other person's speech are combined and sent back to
    the CapTel phone and played and displayed.

The service is currently in pilot testing. For more information see:
<http://www.ultratec.com/N1.htm>

***The "Try Harder" Concept***

-   How it works.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   You start out using an inexpensive automated service (such as voice
    recognition).

-   If it works -- fine. If not -- you press "TRY HARDER" button

-   This connects you to a more expensive (network based) service that
    is more robust.

-   If it works -- fine. If not -- you press "TRY HARDER" again.

-   This connects you to a human assisted version of the service.

-   You can also have additional levels that involve more talented (and
    more expensive) people or services as well.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   What it does

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Allows seamless integration of human assisted and fully automated
    services.

-   Provides a smooth and workable path between current and future
    technologies.

-   It can be applied to most all of the techniques discussed today.

***Personal Interpreter on Demand***

-   Problem

-   Need to have an interpreter available 24 x 7 or at least 16x7.

-   Don't need them all the time

-   Can't afford having them around much of the time.

-   Solution − have a device that can instantly capture and translate
    any speech around you to text.

-   Use a directional microphone as a pickup (a.k.a., a "Listening
    Pen").

-   Display text on handheld or heads-up display (e.g., on glasses).

-   Also -- probably could use any cell phone with proper programming.

***Instant Captioning***

News Flash Instant Captioning was just announced by Ultratec on
September 22, 2000. It is now in field testing. For more information see
<http://www.ultratec.com/N1.htm>.

***Remote Sign Language Interpretation***

This uses the same mechanism as personal captioning except instead of
text coming back -- you get sign language.

-   Using human signers

-   Requires wide bandwidth

-   Demonstrated at SC99 in Portland last year (over Internet II)

-   Using "avatars" (synthetically generated humanlike image)

-   Allows service over low bandwidth.

-   Works with abstracted human signers.

-   Or − automated speech to text to sign translation.

-   Currently being explored − as a joint multi-organizational
    collaborative effort.

> ***Morphed Signers and Talkers***

-   Morph the image of a real person (the speaker) against a signing
    avatar.

-   Create a "real signing person" from a person who cannot sign.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Allows people to be presented as they wish -- or to see others
    communicating in a form that is most convenient for them.

***Virtual Communication Skills***

Consider the case of three speakers on a teleconference call

-   Person 1 signs and needs sign for fast communication.

-   Person 2 is late deafened and doesn't know sign.

-   Person 3 is not deaf and doesn't know sign.

Each gets to pick how they would like to appear to others (as default)
or, each gets to pick how the others communicate with them

-   Person 1 signs and sees person 2 & 3 signing.

-   Person 2 types and sees person 1 & 3 captioned.

-   Person 3 talks and hears person 1 & 2 talking back to him.

***Assistance on Demand***

These are techniques that can be applied across disabilities.

-   Audio assistance on demand.

-   Visual assistance on demand.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Reading, language, Cognitive assistance on demand.

Some features might be

-   Ability to call up service in an instant.

-   Start in the past by 1, 2 or 3 minutes.

-   Slight speed play ( to catch up).

-   Only the assisted person hears / sees the assistance.

-   Instant in process call-up is easy with IP. Probably not possible
    with PSTN.

***Cognitive Assistant on Demand -"The Companion" -- A concept piece***

-   Size of a large wallet

-   Four or five large buttons on it,

-   Brightly and distinctly colored and have symbols on them.

-   \"Help.\"

-   \"Yes\" and \"No.\"

-   Request button.

-   Voice output and speech recognition.

-   Artificial intelligence system programmed within it which is
    specifically designed to facilitate problem-solving and crisis
    resolution. (so--so today)

-   Reminder and monitor system for the individual.

-   Built in GPS system

-   Cellular communication system - allowing instant contact with a
    crisis/assistance center (with auto ID and computer records)

So - do we need to worry? Will access happen automatically (by default)
as a result of mobile users, ever dropping costs of computing and voice,
and buyers who look at "length of feature list"? It hasn't worked that
way in the past. The existence of a possibility hasn't always resulted
in a general implementation. The market may result in splitting of
services across technologies. (Which would be o.k. if you can use them
all -- but not if you can't, e.g., eyes free is "good for people who
drive and need to access info" -- but may not be available in handhelds
if it is built into all cars or car kits.) Nevertheless, a lot of the
infrastructure and many of the capabilities will be there by default.
The questions is: "What will be there naturally and what won't". We must
devise a way to ensure that those things that are needed will be there
in an intervention-minimalist way.

With respect to the work of the group, there are no conclusions yet.
Although we are still exploring, some preliminary thoughts are
surfacing. IP will make much of this possible, practical, and fairly
straightforward. The dropping size and costs of processors, memory and
speech analyzers/synthesizers will make it practical. General awareness
of the issue and the incentive to check at the design stage for
accessibility for the disabled may be the largest problems. We need to
decide what is needed and what is not, and how to stimulate one without
the other.

##### 11.0 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 on Wednesday, December 6, 2000.

### Annex 1: Meeting Videotape

A VHS videotape of the September 27, 2000 meeting serves as a set of
comprehensive minutes of that meeting. Copies of the tape can be
obtained from the Commission\'s contracted copier, In Focus. They may be
reached by phone at: 703.843.0100 ext. 2278

### Annex 2: Sample Gift Letter From Member Or Member Company

Christopher J. Wright

General Counsel

Federal Communications Commission

445 12th Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20554

Dear Mr. Wright:

\[Name of offeror\] hereby proposes to donate a gift to the Federal
Communications Commission in accordance with the Commission's statutory
gift acceptance authority found at section 4(g)(3) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 USC § 154(g)(3), as implemented by the
Commission's rule at 47 C.F.R. § 1.3000-3004.

\[Name of offeror\] is \[briefly describe company or organization\]. The
gift we are offering the FCC is \[briefly describe gift and approximate
fair market value. For example: a gift of funds in the amount of
\$10,000.\]. Our purpose in offering this gift to the FCC is \[briefly
explain the offeror's reason for extending this offer. For example: to
facilitate the Commission's ability to ascertain the state of the
electromagnetic noise floor.\] \[Name of offeror\] understands the FCC
has no obligation, however, to utilize these offered funds for this
purpose.

On behalf of \[name of offeror\] I hereby confirm that this offer is
unconditional and is not contingent on any promise or expectation that
the Commission's receipt of the gift will benefit \[name of offeror\] in
any regulatory matter.

Sincerely

\[Offeror's representative\]

\[Title or position\]

Annex 3: Letter from Associate General Counsel of the FCC to Dr. Lucky

September 22, 2000

Dr. Robert W. Lucky

Corporate Vice President

Telcordia Technologies

331 Newman Springs Road

Red Bank, JN 07701-6599

######## Re: FCC Technological Advisory Council - Noise Floor Study

Dear Dr. Lucky:

Dr. Dave Farber, the Designated Federal Official for the FCC's
Technological Advisory Council (TAC) asked that I clarify a couple
matters regarding arrangements for the proposed noise floor study. These
matters relate to the resolution adopted at the June 28, 2000 meeting of
the TAC, whereby members decided to contribute funds necessary to
support a study of the noise floor and to gift those funds to the FCC.

First, please be aware that the FCC's statutory gift authority allows
the FCC to be the recipient of a gift of funds, but the funds must be
given free of any obligation or condition. Accordingly, a gift of funds
cannot be conditioned upon use for the noise study project.

Second, to the extent the members of the TAC decide to make a gift of
funds to the FCC, any such gift of funds should come from the member or
member company, not the Technological Advisory Council. A copy of a
sample gift letter is attached.

I hope this clarifies matters and will assist the TAC as it continues
its important work for the Commission.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Sheldon M. Guttmann, Esq.

Associate General Counsel

Office of General Counsel

##### Annex 4: Abstract of Hagn Talk

# Perspectives on Man-Made Radio Noise in the New Millennium

# ABSTRACT

The first recorded incidents of man-made noise causing harmful
interference occurred when the ignition noise from motor cars "fritted
the coherers" of G. Marconi and other early radio pioneers in the first
part of the last century. Ignition noise has remained the primary source
of ambient background radio noise external to buildings at about 50 MHz
and higher frequencies. Noise from power transmission lines and from
distribution lines and the equipment attached to them tends to
predominate from about 15 MHz down to LF. This paper will consider the
progress of our knowledge of man-made noise gained over the last 100
years, and discuss needs for measuring and modeling radio noise as we
enter the new millennium.

The IEEE/EIA JTAC (IEEE, 1968) produced a model of Fam \[the median
effective antenna noise figure Fa, in dB(kTob)\] vs frequency for urban,
suburban and rural environmental categories for frequencies from 10 kHz
to 10 GHz. There was a disturbing offset at 10-20 MHz due in part to the
different bandwidths and detectors used at the lower and higher
frequencies. This was resolved by taking data with the same equipment
for the band 250 kHz to 250 MHz. Spaulding and Disney (1971) converted
those data into models of Fam for business, residential, and rural areas
that became CCIR Report 258 (now ITU-R Report 258-5, 1990). Spaulding
and Hagn (1978) modeled the worldwide minimum Fa levels vs frequency
from 0.1 Hz to 1 THz (CCIR Report 660). All of these models were
empirical models, and they will only remain valid so long as the
assumptions on the noise sources remain valid. These assumptions may no
longer be valid for VHF and UHF noise (Achatz, et al., 2000) since
manufacturers may have reduced ignition noise to enable proper operation
of on-board electronics. We don't know the ambient background noise
levels very well or whether the levels are increasing, decreasing or
staying about the same as they were 30 years ago. Even if these models
were perfectly valid, they don't cover the frequency bands of most
current interest for new services (e.g., 400 MHz-60 GHz). Above about
300 MHz, the impulse strength, in dB(uV/MHz), the amplitude probability
distribution (APD), and the time-domain statistics are more appropriate.
These have been measured for selected environments (e.g., hospitals,
office buildings, etc.), but no standardized model has so far evolved.
Middleton (1979) has modeled both narrowband noise (Class A) and
wideband noise (Class B) and the combination (Class C), but the model
input parameters have only been determined for example cases to validate
the methodology. Channel occupancy and frequency band congestion are
increasingly needed for both "noise" and performance modeling and for
spectrum management. Spaulding and Hagn (1977) defined channel occupancy
as a random variable, and this definition has been accepted by the ITU.
We have no accepted models of channel occupancy and the only models
available for band congestion are for HF in Western Europe (Gott, et
al., 1999).

As we enter the new millennium, new noise sources are being developed
(e.g., ultrawideband devices), and other electronic devices continue to
proliferate as fast as the technology and the regulatory process will
allow. Many of these other individual sources of "noise" may meet the
current Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules, but in great
numbers they may negatively impact the overall electromagnetic noise
environment. Therefore, it is now time to readdress defining the
requirements for radio noise measurements of both individual devices and
of various environments of interest (including inside buildings),
develop models and simulations for both sources and environments and for
performance models for the systems of the new millennium, and to
reassess current FCC limits for devices. The FCC's Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) has taken up this challenge (see
[http://www.jacksons.net/TAC](http://www.jacksons.net/tac/)).

George H. Hagn

4208 Sleepy Hollow Road

Annandale, VA 22003-2046

\(703\) 941-7663 ghagn@erols.com

##### Annex 5: FCC staff

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

Contact David Farber 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 6: 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@appliedminds.net

Christine Hemrick hemrick@cisco.com

Dewayne L. Hendricks dewayne@dandin.com

Charles L. Jackson chuck@jacksons.net

Kalle Kontson kkontson@iitri.org

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

Wah L. Lim Wah.Lim@hughes.com

Robert L. Martin bobmartin@lucent.com

Glenn Reitmeier greitmeier@sarnoff.com

Dennis Roberson Dennis.Roberson@motorola.com

Patrick White pwhite@safeguard.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@appliedminds.net

Dewayne L. Hendricks dewayne@dandin.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@appliedminds.net

Christine Hemrick hemrick@cisco.com

Dewayne L. Hendricks dewayne@dandin.com

Ross Ireland ri4181@txmail.sbc.com

Paul F. Liao pliao@research.panasonic.com

Wah L. Lim Wah.Lim@hughes.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 pwhite@safeguard.com

Robert M. Zitter robert.zitter@hbo.com

**Intelligent Device Bill of Rights *ad-hoc* working group** (Bran
Ferren, Moderator)

Jules Bellisio <jules@research.telcordia.com>

David Farber DFARBER@fcc.gov

Bran Ferren bran@appliedminds.net

Dale Hatfield <DHATFIEL@fcc.gov>

David Hughes dave@oldcelo.com

David S. Isenberg isen@isen.com

Kalle Kontson <kkontson@iitri.org>

Paul F. Liao pliao@research.panasonic.com

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

Arthur H.M.Ross a.ross@ieee.org

Marvin Sirbu sirbu@cmu.edu

Gregg C. Vanderheiden gv@trace.wisc.edu

Robert M. Zitter robert.zitter@hbo.com