The Future of Wireless in Education

1. The Future of Wireless in Education Some Thoughts Peter M. Siegel CIO, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign cio@uiuc.edu Networking 2001 Washington, DC April 11, 2001

2. One Taxonomy of Wireless - 1 • Room- or building-specific • “wired” classrooms or office suites • little interference, put in “what works”, security manageable by negotiation • Ethernet, campus provided • Campus-level (Ethernet) • cost and security issues significant, but getting addressed soon • important to know who is using the network • scaling to >>1000 users • Ethernet, campus provided

3. One Taxonomy of Wireless - 2 • Community Wireless • Various protocols, industry-provided services • Universities believe/hope that negotiation with local companies can lead to seamless services for campus community off-campus • (Not borne out yet for cable or DSL…) • Wide-area (inter/national) Wireless • As above • Only hope is flexible, open approach to service provision

4. What else? • Old news: • Wireless means integrated voice and data • The Web on PDAs: not very interesting per se • More Important • multimedia streaming to small devices • asynchronous and synchronous services • educational value <==> entertainment value • Specialized services on a range of devices, not dumbed-down desktop services

5. Next-Generation Wireless • Campus Managed: Extension of Wired Infrastructure • >10 mbits now • integrated with wireline billing now • security, geographic location identification almost here • Wide-area “3G” Wireless • 100s of kilobits mobile to mbits indoors • billing standards developing • security? Geographic location to be there • Timing: Will companies recoup “2G” system investments first?

6. eLearning, eCollaboration, and Wireless • eLearning & eCollaboration teach us students/faculty need/want access to the best campus services even when off-campus or outside classroom settings • First wave: Comparable speeds as on campus for basic services • Wired apartments, homes • High-speed access to local services over web to anywhere • Second wave: Truly mobile access to services beyond the web • Staying in asynchronous data contact >> synchronous voice contact • Synchronous data contact: Learning communities in traditional locations (library) and non-traditional locations

7. Integrated View of Wireless Services Universities must move from taking care of services they can own… …To working with industry to ensure that wide-area wireless interoperates with campus services, allowing: • a consistent view of services by end-user • a small number of interfaces and protocols • no blocking of required security (e.g. VPN) or other basic functions for “consumer” services

8. Issue #1 • Bottleneck: It’s very hard to get information from industry regarding technical directions and timing • Benefits of cooperating with academia early on appear less than in the past • Churn in industry • has obscured earlier joint successes • means company contacts often do not know company technical plans • means technical plans may change without warning • makes it hard for universities to develop business models

9. Issue #2 • If industry-provided wireless is cheaper, more pervasive, and better, will campus-level wireless have been a good investment? • Academics want consistent access everywhere: work, home, roaming campus, roaming the world • Services must work anywhere • Answer depends on timing

10. Issue #3 • Same technologies are used for business and personally… • cell phone, PDA, computer, broadband services • notion of managing uses by having duplicate devices and networks is not sensible, but often the case today for academics following “the rules” (e.g. state law)

11. Issue #4 • Ubiquitous, mobile computing is going to expand more rapidly than we think • The services may be high-end today, but will be basic to students, service workers, even faculty • Business models for paying for services are still primitive • Reliability and location-identification a major problem • life safety issues, emergencies, tracking network attacks

12. Issue #5 • Security and Compliance is growing problem for education • Conflict between anonymous access (library) and need to identify source of attacks/threats • Some university lawyers: we must show due diligence in logging activity and tracking perpetrators • Wireless, esp. from non-campus, services will exacerbate this • (A variant on the “hotmail” problem) • DMCA, HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), CIPA (Children’s Internet Protection Act), ...and the list goes on...

13. Issue #6 • Scalability • Managing over wide range of customer densities • Can we manage the wireless complex? • Can we afford it? • Can we bill for it effectively and cheaply?

14. Issue #7 • The digital divide is exacerbated by improvements in communications technology • Haves vs Have-nots: • Haves can learn all the time at home, play, experiment • Have-nots must “wait in line”, work on task, and leave scarce public sites (school seats, libraries, etc) • Universities may not be able to provide “free” access to community because of security/compliance isues • Cities vs. low-density areas • Services may deploy years later (or never?) at enormous cost differences • Promise of eLearning is in broad access • Profitable “low-hanging” fruit is among those who can pay the premium

15. Conclusion • Wireless Technologies, as part of Ubiquitous Mobile Computing, becoming critical to academia • Academia is technically-capable, innovation-oriented, and enthusiastic • Reaching non-traditional students and communities, especially have-nots, needs more partnership among academia, government, industry • Many issues remain that slow down the effective adoption/deployment of these new technologies • regulatory, cultural, financial, and technical

16. ITFS, 3G, and the NPRM Preserving and Developing Education’s Spectrum for the 21st Century EDUCAUSE Kenneth D. Salomon Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC ksalomon@dlalaw.com

17. What is ITFS • ITFS = Instructional Television Fixed Service • FCC designated 2.5 GHz for educational use 40 years ago • Use by schools, colleges, universities, and other educational groups • Nearly 1300 ITFS licensees: • 331 colleges & universities with 752 licenses • 738 k-12 schools (public and private) with 879 licenses • 9 statewide networks

18. Current Uses: Video broadcasting (used by millions of students at tens of thousands of locations) Professional development Future Uses: Wireless broadband at little or no cost to educational institutions Two-way digital video for interactive distance learning Wireless Wide Area Networking What is ITFS Used for

19. Role of Commercial Partners • Lease excess capacity from ITFS licensees • Revenue sharing/equipment and technical support • Shared network • Use excess capacity to provide video or fixed wireless broadband services • The only broadband option for some • DSL/cable modem competition for others • Two way authority makes spectrum more valuable to ITFS licensees

20. What is 3G • Next (third) generation cell phone service • Provides data at faster speeds, but is not truly broadband • “Global standard” although spectrum allocation varies from country to country • Several different standards evolving

21. FCC NPRM on 3G • 3G proponents claim an additional 160 MHz below 3GHz are “required” • 2000 World Radio Conference identified 1.7 (DoD) and 2.5 (ITFS/MMDS) GHz bands as possible candidates • Clinton October 2000 memorandum • NTIA and FCC Final Staff Reports • March 30, 2001 • http://www.fcc.gov/3G/

22. What is the Problem? • The 160 MHz of additional spectrum below 3 GHz is NOT available unless existing users are relocated by the FCC or NTIA • A prime band under review is used by ITFS • There is a very real risk that ITFS will be relocated to much less desirable frequency • Threatens continued revenues/equipment support from commercial providers and roll out of high speed wireless access

23. Comments on 2.5 GHz Band With regard to ITFS, the FCC asks: • Could a portion of the ITFS/MMDS band be made available to new entities? • If so, how much spectrum, and where in the band? • Could incumbent ITFS/MMDS licensees be accommodated in other bands?

24. Comments on 2.5 GHz (cont’d) • If so, what procedures would apply to the relocated ITFS/MMDS licensees? • Expense reimbursement, alternative facilities, etc. • Would allowing ITFS and MMDS licensees to provide mobile service be beneficial without reallocating the spectrum to other licensees?

25. Who Else is Involved? • Other policy makers involved: --Congress --White House -- Department of Commerce -- Department of Education

26. WEB NOW Campaign • Wireless Educational Broadband Now or WEB NOW Campaign • Website: www.itfs.org/webnow • NIA and ITFS Spectrum Alliance • Working with Catholic Television Network • 100+ National, State, Local Members • EDUCAUSE • Both Washington and Grassroots • Targeting FCC, Congress, NTIA, White House

27. WEB NOW Campaign • Washington • LobbyingVisits, Letters and Calls • FCC and on the Hill • FCC Comments and Reply Comments • Letters to Secretaries Paige and Evans • Media • Grassroots

28. The Future of Wirelessin Education Bill Lane Chief Technologist Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Federal Communications Commission

29. Today’s Plan • Framing the issues • How your Federal Communications Commission (FCC) fits in! • The search for 3G spectrum & why all this is important to you! My Personal Views

30. The “Enterprise” Environment Source: Drew and Dillinger, “Evolution Toward Reconfigurable User Equipment”, IEEE Communications Magazine, February 2001

31. The Convergence Issue! Bluetooth BREW WAP PalmOS 802.11b J2ME CDMA Access "The Network" BWA GSM PocketPC C# HiperLan/2 XML Smartphone PDA 3G

32. The “Cellular/PCS” Issue Cellular/PCS Subscribers & Penetration Source: Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association and Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette

33. Part of the “Spectrum” Issue

34. The “Wireless Access” Issue Unlicensed!Part 15!

35. Part 15 • No harmful interference caused and received interference accepted • Limited power • Must accede to primary licensed users

36. The FCC • Established by the Communications Act of 1934 Independent agency of U.S. government Responsible to Congress • Charged with establishing policy to govern interstate and international communications by television, radio, wire, satellite, and cable Note: Government use is handled by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Dept. of Commerce • Headed by five Commissioners, each appointed by the President, with one designated as Chairman Chairman Michael Powell (R) Commissioner Susan Ness (D) [Kathleen Abernathy] Commissioner Gloria Tristani (D) Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth (R) [Kevin Martin] [Michael Copps]

37. Seven Bureau’s Cable Services Bureau Common Carrier Bureau Consumer Information Bureau Enforcement Bureau International Bureau Mass Media Bureau Wireless Telecommunications Bureau WTB Ten Office’s Administrative Law Judges Communications Business Opportunities Engineering and Technology General Counsel Inspector General Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs Managing Director Media Relations Plans and Policy Workplace Diversity The FCC

38. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau • Responsible for all FCC domestic wireless telecommunications • programs & policies except satellite communications • or broadcasting. • Provide information, licensing, rulemaking, data storage for: • Cellular telephones • Paging services • Personal communications services • Public safety • Commercial wireless services • Private wireless services • Auction spectrum

39. The Process • Notice of Inquiry (NOI): Gather information, generate ideas • Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM): Propose rule changes and seek public comment • Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM): seek further public comment on specific issues • Report and Order (R&O): issue new rules, amend existing rules, make decisions not to do so; entered in Federal Register • Petition for Reconsideration: Dissatisfied with issue resolution, within 30 days file for reconsideration • Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O): response to petition for reconsideration

40. Core U.S. Goals for Spectrum Management • Maximize efficient use of radio spectrum • Promote competition • Expand access • Protect and promote the public interest • Ensure ability of operators to adapt to new technologies, new services and new market needs Source: FCC Principles for Reallocation of Spectrum to Encourage the Development of Telecommunications Technologies for the New Millenium, 18 NOV 99

41. Goal Implementation In the U.S., these core goals are achieved by: • Allowing for flexible spectrum uses • Enabling multiple competing technologies • Minimizing the number of rules • to eliminate harmful interference • to promote competition • Using auctions to assign licenses • Communications Act of 1934 • Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 • Telecommunications Act of 1996 • Balanced Budget Act of 1997 • Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999

42. Policy Implications - Flexibility Allowing flexibility in spectrum usage means that: • License uses should not be restricted except to prevent interference (e.g., authorize fixed as well as mobile, data as well as voice) • Operators should be allowed to evolve to more advanced services

43. Policy Implications - Technology Neutrality Technology Neutrality means that: • Multiple & competing technologies are allowed and encouraged • Industry takes the lead in achieving interoperability/harmonization/standardization • Innovation is encouraged and led by industry

44. US Allows 2G Licensees To Evolve Into 3G Providers • Incumbent services, such as cellular, PCS and ESMR, have regulatory flexibility to evolve to advanced services, such as IMT-2000 • However, merely granting regulatory flexibility to allow incumbents to deploy advanced services may not be sufficient to respond to anticipated demand

45. DECT TDD (1890-1880) MSS DOWNLINK (2170-2200) MSS UPLINK (1980-2010) DECT UNPAIR ADDITIONAL IMT-2000 SATELLITE (141 MHz) 1525 - 1559 1610 -1660.5 2483.5 - 2500 2500 - 2520 2670 - 2690 MSS (20 MHz) MMDS(2150-2160) 1930 1710 1755 2110 2165 1850 1910 1990 2025 2690 GOVT FX, MOB, SAT TO BE AUCT PCS MOB PCS BASE TO BE AUCT U.S. MDS, MMDS, ITFS MSSUP MSS DN PCSUNP G/NG 2010 1880 1920 1980 2025 2110 2170 3G EUROPE & OTHERS UMTS MOB UMTS BASE MSSUP MSS DN UMTS UNPAIRED 1785 1805 2G EUROPE & OTHERS GSM MOB GSM BASE 1710 1885 2025 2110 IMT -2000 TERRESTRIAL TERRESTRIAL TERRESTRIAL + HAPS August 26, 2000

46. Three U.S. Goals for WRC-2000 • Identify more than one band pair for IMT-2000 use. • Different countries have different needs for mobile spectrum. • Allow nations to choose among bands that are equally appropriate for IMT-2000 use. • Mandatory harmonization stifles competition and technological development. • Adopt a technologically-neutral band allocation. • Industry decisions should rest on sound engineering, not on arbitrary government decisions.

47. Results of WRC-2000 • WRC-2000 adopted an equitable, multi-band, technologically neutral approach for IMT-2000. • Bands Identified for IMT-2000: • 806-960 MHz (WRC-00, FN S5.XXX ) • 1885-2025 MHz and 2110-2200 MHz (WARC-92, FN S5.388) • 1710-1885 MHz and 2500-2690 MHz(WRC-00, FN S5.AAA • Bottom Line - Need 160 MHz!

48. United States Considering New Allocations for Advanced Services • In December 2000 NPRM, FCC proposed allocating: • 2110-2150 MHz • 2160-2165 MHz • 1710-1755 MHz • Auction by 2002 • Study Alternative Bands • 1755-1850 MHz (Current DoD spectrum) • 2500-2690MHz (Current MDS/ITFS)

49. 1755-1850 MHz in the U.S. • DoD telecommand, telemetry and control of military satellites • Military tactical radio-relay • Government fixed microwave • Military instrumented ranges • Naval ship-ship, ship-shore digital wide-band voice and data links Study Result: “Some” limited sharing possible; ~$ 4-5B relocation costs; long time frame

50. 2500-2690 MHz in the U.S. • High-speed fixed wireless • Multichannel Multipoint Distribution System (MMDS) • Instructional Fixed Television Service (ITFS) • Former one-way multi-channel video programming providers prepare to launch two-way wireless broadband services Study Result: Sharing not possible; relocation unlikely; ~$ 10-30 B to relocate