# Presentation: 542898

## Wireless Device

**Wireless Device**
**Bill of Rights **
*********************************************
**Examining the **
**Policy and Architecture Implications**
**Kalle R. Kontson**
**Spectrum Management Working group**
**FCC –TAC**
**4 December 2002**

**Notes:**
SLIDE 1

## Today’s Objectives

- Review Policy Implications of the proposed First Draft _Intelligent Wireless Device Bill Of Rights_, considering the recent _Spectrum Policy Task Force_ Report
- Examine some possible Architectures implied by the First Draft _Intelligent Wireless Device Bill Of Rights_
- Consider the Value
- Is there real value, or is it just a philosophical exercise?
- Take only 20 minutes so we can all hear Dr. Kolodzy

**Engage the TAC to guide thinking and define limits**

## First Draft:  A Possible Candidate for an Intelligent Wireless Device Bill of Rights (BoR)

_**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 in 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.**

## Some Policy Implications of BoR

| Article 1:
Right to Use |  Can be implemented under both an Exclusive Use or Commons model;  does not demand “unlicensed” paradigm
Secondary Markets or Easements can be used to convey access
General “must carry” or “equal access” provisions are essential
 Is it Exclusive Use, or Spectrum Husbandry?
Analogies: 
 Public restaurants vs public highways
 Right to bear arms
 Authorization is a Key Ingredient
 Certification of Intelligent and Righteous behaviors |
| --- | --- |
| Article 2:
Right to be Protected |  Goes beyond current unlicensed Commons model
 Demands some receiver standards in order to earn the right to be protected; implies Certification of Receivers?
 May demand some policy on transmitter behaviors to announce presence in order to earn the right to protection
 Requires addressing “harmful interference” head-on |
| Article 3:
Supreme Law clause |  Could be applied band-by-band
 May be a bridge too far? |

## Some Architecture Implications of BoR 

| Article 1:
Right to Use |  Mesh networks:  Is there an Ultimate Mesh Network architecture that preserves Article 1, and optimizes capacity?
 Dr. Dave Reed’s work on Network Scaling
 Other Architectures:
 The XG Design (Easements)
 The Ubiquitous Network Manager in the Sky (or on the Web)
 Secondary Markets; Band managers |
| --- | --- |
| Article 2:
Right to be Protected |  Interference Temperature: Monitoring and Management
 Possibly implies an active ingredient in receiver protection to announce one’s presence and intention to be protected
 Can be implemented by real-time transmissions, or by posting on a common bulletin board, or other means
 Adaptive receiver behaviors to minimize “squatting” effect
 Step in, do your business, and get out |
| Article 3:
Supreme Law clause |  Can only be applied if the supporting architectures and technologies exist |

## Possible BoR Compliant Architecture: Ultimate Mesh Network

- Principles (See Dr. Reed’s Paper on “_How Wireless Networks Scale_”):
- Every user is also a router
- Dynamic, adaptive control of power, frequency, bandwidth
- Every user “must carry” other user’s relay packets on an equal-access basis with their own
- Infrastructure provides access points, high-level network management, and also relay points
- Theoretical Benefits:  Maximizes Information Capacity and Minimizes Power Consumption
- Risks and Costs:  Introduces Increased Device Cost, Complexity and Network Latency

## The Trade Space and Payoff forUltimate Mesh Network Architectures

- The TRADE-OFF:  **Spectrum and power conservation for cost, complexity, latency**

- New Spectrum Being Produced
- By the Creator

- None

- Lots

- Cost, Complexity and Latency Driven by Moore’s Law

- Lots

- Time

- Time

- Little

## SUMMARY

- There Seem to be Policies and Architectures that Could Support the Spirit of a Bill of Rights
- The Bill of Rights Can be Complementary to the SPTF Recommendations
- Should We Spend Some Time Perfecting The Language?
- Clearly, the Current Draft is Not Ready for Prime-Time
- If So, Then We Should Recruit Volunteers and Dedicate a Session to Developing the Next Level of Refinement