https://urgentcomm.com/wp-content/themes/ucm_child/assets/images/logo/footer-new-logo.png
  • Home
  • News
  • Multimedia
    • Back
    • Multimedia
    • Video
    • Podcasts
    • Galleries
    • IWCE’s Video Showcase
    • Product Guides
  • Commentary
    • Back
    • Commentary
    • Urgent Matters
    • View From The Top
    • All Things IWCE
    • Legal Matters
  • Resources
    • Back
    • Resources
    • Webinars
    • White Papers
    • Reprints & Reuse
  • IWCE
    • Back
    • IWCE
    • Conference
    • Special Events
    • Exhibitor Listings
    • Premier Partners
    • Floor Plan
    • Exhibiting Information
    • Register for IWCE
  • About Us
    • Back
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Terms of Service
    • Privacy Statement
    • Cookie Policy
  • Related Sites
    • Back
    • American City & County
    • IWCE
    • Light Reading
    • IOT World Today
    • Mission Critical Technologies
    • TU-Auto
  • In the field
    • Back
    • In the field
    • Broadband Push-to-X
    • Internet of Things
    • Project 25
    • Public-Safety Broadband/FirstNet
    • Virtual/Augmented Reality
    • Land Mobile Radio
    • Long Term Evolution (LTE)
    • Applications
    • Drones/Robots
    • IoT/Smart X
    • Software
    • Subscriber Devices
    • Video
  • Call Center/Command
    • Back
    • Call Center/Command
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • NG911
    • Alerting Systems
    • Analytics
    • Dispatch/Call-taking
    • Incident Command/Situational Awareness
    • Tracking, Monitoring & Control
  • Network Tech
    • Back
    • Network Tech
    • Interoperability
    • LMR 100
    • LMR 200
    • Backhaul
    • Deployables
    • Power
    • Tower & Site
    • Wireless Networks
    • Coverage/Interference
    • Security
    • System Design
    • System Installation
    • System Operation
    • Test & Measurement
  • Operations
    • Back
    • Operations
    • Critical Infrastructure
    • Enterprise
    • Federal Government/Military
    • Public Safety
    • State & Local Government
    • Training
  • Regulations
    • Back
    • Regulations
    • Narrowbanding
    • T-Band
    • Rebanding
    • TV White Spaces
    • None
    • Funding
    • Policy
    • Regional Coordination
    • Standards
  • Organizations
    • Back
    • Organizations
    • AASHTO
    • APCO
    • DHS
    • DMR Association
    • ETA
    • EWA
    • FCC
    • IWCE
    • NASEMSO
    • NATE
    • NXDN Forum
    • NENA
    • NIST/PSCR
    • NPSTC
    • NTIA/FirstNet
    • P25 TIG
    • TETRA + CCA
    • UTC
Urgent Communications
  • NEWSLETTER
  • Home
  • News
  • Multimedia
    • Back
    • Video
    • Podcasts
    • Omdia Crit Comms Circle Podcast
    • Galleries
    • IWCE’s Video Showcase
    • Product Guides
  • Commentary
    • Back
    • All Things IWCE
    • Urgent Matters
    • View From The Top
    • Legal Matters
  • Resources
    • Back
    • Webinars
    • White Papers
    • Reprints & Reuse
    • UC eZines
    • Sponsored content
  • IWCE
    • Back
    • Conference
    • Why Attend
    • Exhibitor Listing
    • Floor Plan
    • Exhibiting Information
    • Join the Event Mailing List
  • About Us
    • Back
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Cookie Policy
    • Terms of Service
    • Privacy Statement
  • Related Sites
    • Back
    • American City & County
    • IWCE
    • Light Reading
    • IOT World Today
    • TU-Auto
  • newsletter
  • In the field
    • Back
    • Internet of Things
    • Broadband Push-to-X
    • Project 25
    • Public-Safety Broadband/FirstNet
    • Virtual/Augmented Reality
    • Land Mobile Radio
    • Long Term Evolution (LTE)
    • Applications
    • Drones/Robots
    • IoT/Smart X
    • Software
    • Subscriber Devices
    • Video
  • Call Center/Command
    • Back
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • NG911
    • Alerting Systems
    • Analytics
    • Dispatch/Call-taking
    • Incident Command/Situational Awareness
    • Tracking, Monitoring & Control
  • Network Tech
    • Back
    • Cybersecurity
    • Interoperability
    • LMR 100
    • LMR 200
    • Backhaul
    • Deployables
    • Power
    • Tower & Site
    • Wireless Networks
    • Coverage/Interference
    • Security
    • System Design
    • System Installation
    • System Operation
    • Test & Measurement
  • Operations
    • Back
    • Critical Infrastructure
    • Enterprise
    • Federal Government/Military
    • Public Safety
    • State & Local Government
    • Training
  • Regulations
    • Back
    • Narrowbanding
    • T-Band
    • Rebanding
    • TV White Spaces
    • None
    • Funding
    • Policy
    • Regional Coordination
    • Standards
  • Organizations
    • Back
    • AASHTO
    • APCO
    • DHS
    • DMR Association
    • ETA
    • EWA
    • FCC
    • IWCE
    • NASEMSO
    • NATE
    • NXDN Forum
    • NENA
    • NIST/PSCR
    • NPSTC
    • NTIA/FirstNet
    • P25 TIG
    • TETRA + CCA
    • UTC
acc.com

content


Cutting WiFi’s Red Tape

Cutting WiFi’s Red Tape

Let me introduce to you John Smith, your typical apartment landlord who is interested in sizable monthly payments from tenants and the phrase no vacancy.
  • Written by Urgent Communications Administrator
  • 1st February 2003

Let me introduce to you John Smith, your typical apartment landlord who is interested in sizable monthly payments from tenants and the phrase “no vacancy.”

Unfortunately, Smith’s prospective tenants lately have been reluctant to enter into tenancy agreements because broadband Internet access via digital subscriber line (DSL) is not yet available in Smith’s building.

Further, due to the prohibitive costs ($100 per apartment), the disruptions to residents of wiring and the inability to recoup costs for wiring common areas, DSL was not even an option that Smith wished to pursue.

The preceding scenario represents an instance where the apartment building and Internet customers can be substituted easily.

Instead of an apartment building, one can envision a hotel skyscraper or a corporate office complex. The costs for running fiber can be about $150,000 per mile in metropolitan areas and deployment times often are lengthy and unpredictable regardless whether the structure is an apartment building or an office complex.

Furthermore, some metropolitan areas have fiber moratoriums. The need for an Internet infrastructure to support high- speed access with easy setup and breakdown with minimal disruption to the existing infrastructure remains constant.

Why Wi-Fi?

The promise of Wi-Fi technologies addresses the speed of data and infrastructure cost issues.

With respect to speed, 802.11(b), one of the Wi-Fi standards, can obtain a maximum transmission speed of up to 11 megabits (MB) per second. To put this in context, it is about seven times faster than the typical DSL connection. 802.11(a) can obtain a maximum transmission speed of up to 50 megabits. A comparison of the time necessary to download a 100 MB file from a T1 line (8 minutes and 41 seconds), to 802.11(b) (2 minutes and 8 seconds) to 802.11(a) (26 seconds) provides ample illustration of the difference among the mediums.

With respect to infrastructure costs, there are virtually none as the technology is truly wireless and the transmission and receiving equipment is a fraction of the costs involved with implementing a comparative wireline infrastructure.

Numerous landlords such as John Smith are eagerly awaiting Wi-Fi technology to lure broadband-hungry tenants. A well-positioned provider or operator must be cognizant of the legal risks and the legislative or regulatory landscape to evaluate the costs and benefits associated with such a venture. Failure to adequately acquaint oneself may result in significant financial costs in the form of regulatory fees or undue hardship in the form of being on the receiving end of a Federal Communications Commission complaint for violating one of its regulations.

Below follows a brief overview of several of the potential legal and regulatory areas that demand a wireless provider’s or operator’s attention.

Legal risks of wireless technologies

The same wireless technologies that promise increased user flexibility, increased employee productivity and lower cost of network ownership also can expose network-based assets to considerable risks. While much of the discussion thus far has focused upon the risks stemming from unauthorized access (authentication) and stolen data (privacy), a number of legal issues also exist.

Although there are no specific federal statutes that define a minimum level of security for companies operating on the Internet, the issue is regularly an item of discussion among lawmakers and the information technology (IT) security industry.

In the 2002 Information Security Annual Survey, nearly two-thirds of IT security practitioner respondents say they would support a federal law requiring all organizations to adopt minimum security practices. The existence of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) do impose liability on entities whose organizations are compromised and specific information is compromised. While GLBA and HIPPA only apply to financial and health care information, there is a move by privacy and civil liberties organizations to expand federal protection to other areas.

Furthermore, in a corporate setting, shareholders may be able to take advantage of state corporation statutes when corporate officers and directors fail to meet or address these obligations.

In addition to specific federal or state laws that may apply in this context, entities must be cognizant of the applicability of breach of contract and negligence claims. A breach of contract claim may result from a breach of a confidentiality provision, failure to satisfy an express or implied agreement to protect proprietary information or failure of a provider to offer a certain level of protection to its products or services. Negligence claims will arise when a party establishes by a preponderance of the evidence (defined by the courts as 51 percent likelihood) that the entity failed to use such care as a “reasonably prudent person would use under similar circumstances.” As the application of negligence claims to Internet intrusions remains largely untested in the legal arena, it still remains in one’s best interest to err on the side of overly cautious.

Property rights also are likely to become an issue. While one’s first impression may be that property rights do not apply to unlicensed spectrum, it would be a faulty assumption. Currently, disputes have arisen between airport authorities and wireless providers as to who has possession and the rights to provide wireless service on airport grounds. The potential revenue that can be gained or lost from the wireless service fuels the dispute, and such conflicts likely will become more common as the amount of potential wireless network revenue increases.

Although legal considerations should not always be considered risks, it is often necessary to characterize them as such in order to ensure they are given the due consideration that they deserve.

In addition to the host of traditional legal issues that a provider should be aware of including: liability, privacy concerns, third-party content issues, copyright and other intellectual property rights laws, wireless providers also must be cognizant of other less apparent legal issues, including regulatory classification issues and franchise regulations.

As an example, a wireless provider may unknowingly be deemed a common carrier and be responsible for complying with the regulations associated with the classification because the services are coupled with the wireless service.

Another example would be that a wireless provider may be considered a franchise, which in some states are required to register with the state and comply with disclosure procedures when marketing franchises.

Therefore, as much as possible, it is incumbent for a wireless provider to seek counsel as to the apparent and unapparent legal issues.

Additional spectrum allocations

The fevered pitch for additional unlicensed frequencies from consumers, manufacturers, the Wi-Fi Alliance and Congressional leaders has resulted in the release of a commission inquiry into examining the “possibility of permitting unlicensed transmitters to operate in additional frequency bands.”

Specifically, the commission is seeking comment on whether unlicensed use should be expanded to TV broadcast spectrum when it is not being used and also expanded to other bands, such as the 3650-3700 MHz. The commission claims that the potential allocation of additional unlicensed spectrum is a result of the “success” of the unlicensed device rules.

The Commission asserts that the success was a result of three factors. The first reason cited was that the bands are used primarily for ISM equipment that may not be impacted by interference from unlicensed devices, allowing for higher power and a greater operational range. The second reason is that the bands have sufficient spectrum to provide bandwidth uses such as video and permit multiple users to share spectrum. Third is the absence of restrictions placed on applications of devices that operate in the bands, allowing for unchecked device innovation and development.

In addition to the television stations in 13 metropolitan areas, one or two channels in the range of 14-20 are shared with the Private Land Mobile Radio Service (PLMRS) under Part 90 of the rules and the Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) under Part 20 of the rules. In the interest of the incumbents, the commission inquiry focused on whether geographic restrictions should be instituted on unlicensed operation where PLMRS or CMRS operations are present.

Should the legislation pass or the commission release an order, a substantial increase in the amount of unlicensed spectrum will be introduced into the marketplace.

Therefore, it is incumbent for wireless providers or operators to position themselves to avoid competition or disruption of current clients by entering into exclusive arrangements or providing a unique or tailored service.

Voice over wireless

In light of an open commission proceeding between voice over Internet providers (VOIP) and local exchange telecommunications providers, the introduction of voice over WLANs raises the potential for regulatory involvement.

The current controversy before the FCC stems from the argument that phone-to-phone Internet protocol (IP) telephony providers should not be responsible for submitting payment to local exchange carriers (LECs) known as access charges. Access charges are assessed upon all interexchange carriers that use local exchange switching facilities for the provision of interstate or foreign telecommunications services.

The FCC’s 1998 Universal Service Report examined the issue of whether and to what extent services offered over the Internet should contribute to universal service.

In addition, the commissioners discussed not only the application of contributions to universal service, but also how these services should be regulated. Section 254(d) requires that “every telecommunications carrier that provides interstate telecommunications services” contribute to federal universal service mechanisms.

Therefore, the issue appears to hinge upon whether the entity provides “telecommunications service.” In the context of defining Internet “telecommunications services” the FCC examined computer-to-computer services in which calls are transmitted end-to-end in IP, with the computers on each end performing the protocol conversion from voice IP and back and phone-to-phone calls that use the Internet protocol.

The FCC reached the “tentative determinations” that computer-to-computer IP telephony services do not hold themselves out as telecommunications services, and phone-to-phone IP telephony services “bear the characteristics of telecommunications services.”

The practical effect of the commission’s determination was that phone-to-phone providers “fall within the section 254(d) mandatory requirement to contribute to universal service mechanisms.”

It is important to note the FCC recognized that the subject matter pertains to “emerging services” and, as such, the tentative determinations may be reexamined to ensure that the FCC had “accurately distinguish[ed] between phone-to-phone and other forms of IP telephony.”

The development of WLANs voice services likely will be included in the commission’s examination of the VOIP inquiry. As the technological differences between computer-to-computer and phone-to-phone continue to disappear, the “tentative determinations” of the Universal Service Report will become more and more difficult to maintain.

Wireless providers that couple their services with regulated services run the risk of triggering FCC regulation. Some of the potential commission regulations include regulatory fees, (Universal Service Fund, Telecommunications Relay Fund), obligations to charge just and reasonable rates and the requirement to submit to the FCC’s formal and informal complaint rules.

As a result, it is incumbent on a wireless provider to carefully tailor its services in a manner to avoid an inadvertent regulatory classification and suffer the associated regulatory requirements.

Exclusive telecom contracts

In the spring of 2001, the FCC issued a new regulation that prohibited future exclusive contracts between all common carriers and commercial multi-tenant building owners. The practical effect of the commission regulation is to prevent one common carrier from enjoying a monopoly in a commercial multi-tenant environment.

The commissioners also noted that the prohibition may be applied to existing contracts and may be applied in the residential environment.

While one’s first impression may regard the exclusive contract regulation as irrelevant to wireless services, it may in fact be a very costly assumption.

As an example, a company known as Vocera has developed an application where the user wears a badge that serves as a WLAN client with a built-in speaker-phone, thereupon providing voice services. While the commission has not yet been asked to review whether the specific regulation applies, (whether wireless services that provide some combination of voice and data can be prohibited from entering into agreements with commercial multi-tenant building owners) it may be motivated to do so in the near future.

The advantages and benefits of a new technology are usually the topics that garner the most attention.

Yet, the legal risks and the legislative or regulatory landscape deserve more, if not an equal amount of attention. Only with the assistance of competent counsel who is able to explain the legal and regulatory landscape will John Smith or any wireless provider be able to position themselves to weather any storm and achieve success in today’s marketplace.

A full unabridged version of this article can be located at http://www.shulmanrogers.com/telecommunications.html


Jason Kerben is an attorney with the telecommunications group of the law firm of Shulman Rogers Gandal Pordy & Ecker. Kerben represents a number of wireless providers and tower owners before the Federal Communications Commission and local state public utility commissions. Contact Jason Kerben at 301-230-5200 or [email protected]

Tags: content

Most Recent


  • Cutting WiFi’s Red Tape
    Newscan: Securing the Internet of Things is quite a challenge
    Also: EWA requests dismissal of 900 MHz applications; TIA names tech and policy priorities for 2014; IJIS Institute names Shumate Award winner; App makes bus waits more tolerable; a Blackberry comeback may be in the offing.
  • Cutting WiFi’s Red Tape
    Newscan: FCC certifies Carlson Wireless's white-space radio
    Also: Congress looks to revamp telecom law; Obama to place some restraints on surveillance; IEEE to study spectrum-occupancy sensing for white-spaces broadband; Major Swedish transport operator opts for Sepura TETRA radios; RFMD to partner on $70 million next-generation power grid project; NENA opens registratiuon for "911 Goes to Washington."
  • Cutting WiFi’s Red Tape
    Newscan: A look at the critical job of 911 dispatchers
    Also: NYC launches website for tracking 911 response times; Oregon implements 911 on pre-paid cell phones; LightSquared wants to keep spectrum assets; Harris receives multiple government orders; FCC extends rebanding financial reconciliation deadline; Zetron gear at core of communications system upgrade; Ritron debuts wireless access control system; EWA seeks policy review of VHF vehicular repeater system deployments.
  • Cutting WiFi’s Red Tape
    Newscan: Average peak data rates of 144 MB/s average realized in tests with CAT 4 LTE device
    Also: Verizon, T-Mobile to swap unused spectrum to improve coverage; Internet giants oppose surveillance--but only when the government does it; FCC Chairman says incentive auction will be delayed until middle of 2015; FCC chair announces staff appointments; Alcatel-Lucent names Tim Krause as chief marketing officer; New Jersey county deploys TriTech CAD system; Toronto airport deploys 26-position Zetron console system;

Leave a comment Cancel reply

To leave a comment login with your Urgent Comms account:

Log in with your Urgent Comms account

Or alternatively provide your name, email address below:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Content

  • RugGear: Contributing to the future of mission-critical broadband communication review and market vision
  • Photo gallery: 2014 Communications Marketing Conference (CMC) in Tucson
  • Cutting WiFi’s Red Tape
    Top 5 Stories - Week of Sept. 22
  • Cutting WiFi’s Red Tape
    RCA plans to expand this year's Technical Symposium

Commentary


How 5G is making cities safer, smarter, and more efficient

26th January 2023

3GPP moves Release 18 freeze date to March 2024

18th January 2023

Do smart cities make safer cities?

  • 1
6th January 2023
view all

Events


UC Ezines


IWCE 2019 Wrap Up

13th May 2019
view all

Twitter


UrgentComm

How 5G is making cities safer, smarter, and more efficient dlvr.it/ShVS1h

26th January 2023
UrgentComm

MCPTT interworking for critical communications dlvr.it/ShTm3P

26th January 2023
UrgentComm

Self-driving cars present terrorism risk, FBI director says dlvr.it/ShTTHx

26th January 2023
UrgentComm

UK Home Office officially will cut ESN ties with Motorola Solutions in December dlvr.it/ShNjfN

24th January 2023
UrgentComm

Newscan: Police software vendor breach exposes personal data, raid plans dlvr.it/ShN0q2

24th January 2023
UrgentComm

RT @IWCEexpo: We're so excited about our awesome list of speakers! Today we highlight Budge Currier, a 9-1-1 Branch Manager at CAL OES, res…

24th January 2023
UrgentComm

Ransomware profits decline as victims dig in, refuse to pay dlvr.it/ShLS15

24th January 2023
UrgentComm

Critical manufacturing sector in the bullseye dlvr.it/ShKrSS

23rd January 2023

Newsletter

Sign up for UrgentComm’s newsletters to receive regular news and information updates about Communications and Technology.

Expert Commentary

Learn from experts about the latest technology in automation, machine-learning, big data and cybersecurity.

Business Media

Find the latest videos and media from the market leaders.

Media Kit and Advertising

Want to reach our digital and print audiences? Learn more here.

DISCOVER MORE FROM INFORMA TECH

  • American City & County
  • IWCE
  • Light Reading
  • IOT World Today
  • Mission Critical Technologies
  • TU-Auto

WORKING WITH US

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Events
  • Careers

FOLLOW Urgent Comms ON SOCIAL

  • Privacy
  • CCPA: “Do Not Sell My Data”
  • Cookie Policy
  • Terms
Copyright © 2023 Informa PLC. Informa PLC is registered in England and Wales with company number 8860726 whose registered and Head office is 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG.