Introduction to Project '97

INTRODUCTION

This year's Engineering Sciences 96 design seminar is concerned with an issue of significance for local governments across the country -- the siting of telecommunication antennas and associated facilities. It is an issue involving complex technology, competing business interests, potential public health and safety concerns, property rights and values, aesthetic judgments, and intricate legal questions.

In the past, applications for permits to establish wireless facilities were relative rare and municipal authorities could handle such requests on a case-by-case basis. As a consequence of the recent surge of interest in mobile wireless communication services, these authorities are now being besieged with requests and communities are confronted with a new set of complex planning and regulatory issues. The demand for wireless services is growing at an explosive pace and recent Federal mandates have given extraordinary impetus to the development of new classes of personal communications services (PCS). Various players in the telecommunications industry are investing on a massive scale and competition for market share is becoming intense. It is estimated that some 100 thousand new wireless antenna sites will be needed in the very near future. The industry sees the vagaries of siting permit processes in tens of thousands of communities across the US as a major obstacle to the expansion of wireless services. Municipalities are, or soon will be, under considerable pressure to expedite the approval of permits. Moreover, many communities see the siting of wireless facilities on municipally owned properties as a potential source of much needed revenue. However, the prospect of the unfettered proliferation of unsightly antennas is bound to make municipal authorities wary. Residents eager for new wireless services will be less that enthusiastic about the possibility of new antenna sites springing up in their own neighborhoods. Local government must develop a siting strategy to minimize the visual impact of wireless facilities and be prepared to respond to residents' fears about the potential dangers of electromagnetic radiation from antennas.[1]

Participants in the Engineering Science 96 design seminar will work in collaboration with officials in nearby cities and towns to design, build and test a suite of software tools for use by municipal planners and regulatory authorities as they undertake the task of formulating effective wireless telecommunications policies.

BACKGROUND

The description wireless or wireless telecommunication applies to a wide range of communication services and technologies that make use of electromagnetic radiation to convey information between two locations. While wireless broadcast entertainment services (radio and television) have long been commonplace, widespread public access to mobile wireless two-way communication is relatively recent. In 1974 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved the underlying concepts of wireless cellular phone service and allocated for this purpose 666 duplex (two-way) channels in the 800 - 900 MHz frequency range.[2] This decision paved the way for the establishment of what is called Advanced Mobile Phone Service (AMPS) which was first demonstrated in trials beginning in 1978 and which has endured as the North American cellular standard ever since.

In wireless communication the scarce resource is space in the electromagnetic frequency spectrum. Early versions of mobile telephony were wasteful in the sense that every mobile unit, operating within a given area, was allocated a fixed frequency channel. Such a system could accommodate but few subscribers.[3] Cellular systems achieve spectral efficiency by an ingenious melding of four key ideas -- spatial localization, dynamic channel assignments, channel reuse and cell splitting. The geographic area served by a cellular system is divided into a set of contiguous cells (see Figure 1). The communication within a given cell is mediated by a base transceiver station (BTS) using channels which form a subset of the total number of channels allocated to the service: to avoid interference, adjacent cells are assigned different channel subsets. A mobile unit is located within a given cell, it is assigned one of the channels associated with that cell and is reassigned a new channel if it moves to another cell. Since the intensity of the electromagnetic signal from a particular BTS diminishes with distance, non adjacent cells may reuse a given channel subset, if separated by a sufficient distance.[4] From the viewpoint of investment strategy, the cellular concept has admirable flexibility in that cellular providers can gracefully adjust to increasing demand by subdividing or splitting only those cells within high traffic areas.

Figure 1: An illustration of channel reuse and cell splitting in a cellular system. In this example each cell is assigned one-seventh of the total number of channels assigned to the system. Note that two smaller cell clusters have been integrated into the system to accommodate increased local demand in a densely populated region.

Auctioning the Airwaves

Few, at the time recognized, the extraordinary significance of the FCC's 1974 decision [5] and the advent of the cellular concept. The technology evolved rather slowly at first. Yet, by mid 1993 there were more than 13 million cellular subscribers in the United States, with an additional 11,000 new subscribers added each day.[6] Responding to this spectacular and unexpected rising demand for wireless services, Congress in August of 1993 [7] mandated that the FCC reallocate portions of the electromagnetic spectrum for personal communication and authorized the FCC to employ competitive bidding procedures in awarding licenses for the use of these new spectral resources.[8] The mandate had several objectives, not the least of which was raising revenue to help balance the federal budget. Furthermore, competitive bidding was deemed to be the most effective means to expedite the licensing process and to open up opportunities for beneficial competition.[9]

Table 1: Broadband PCS Licensing Structure (2074 licenses)
Block	Total frequency allocation	Service area	Number of licensees	Auction dates
A	30 MHz	MTA	51	12/05/94 to 03/13/95
B	30 MHz	MTA	51	12/05/94 to 03/13/95
C	30 MHz	BTA	493	12/18/95 to 05/06/96 07/03/96 to 07/16/96
D	10 MHz	BTA	493	08/26/96 to 01/14/97
E	10 MHz	BTA	493	08/26/96 to 01/14/97
F	10 MHz	BTA	493	08/26/96 to 01/14/97

The FCC held its first spectrum auction on July 25-29, 1994 and awarded ten nationwide licenses to provide so called Narrowband Personal Communication Services (Narrowband PCS). In this first set of awards a total of nearly 1 MHz of spectrum in the region of 900 MHz was allocated for use to expanded the capacity and enhance the technology of paging services. However, it is the auctioning of licenses to provide Broadband Personal Communication Services (Broadband PCS) that has generated the most business interest, federal revenue and media hyperbole. A total of 120 MHz in the region of 2,000 MHz (2 GHz): have been allocated to Broadband PCS: the allocations are divided into six blocks designated A through F (see Table 1). For example, an A-Block licensee would be allocated a total of 30 MHz in one of 51 Major Trading Areas (MTA) while a C-Block licensee would be allocated a total of 10 MHz in one of 493 Basic Trading Areas (BTA). MTAs are essentially the major metropolitan centers of commercial activity in the continental United States.[10] BTAs are subsets of the MTAs and encompass contiguous areas of commercial activity which center on a city or a set of neighboring cities.[11]

Clearly, the intention has been to foster keen competition, since as many six broadband PCS service providers are to be licensed in a given community, which may be served already by two first-generation cellular phone (AMPS) providers! As of August, 1996, the Broadband PCS auctions (A, B, and C Blocks) had raised nearly 19 billion dollars in federal revenue: the auctions of the D, E and F Blocks have just concluded with a bid total at approximately 2.5 billion dollars.[12] Needless to say, with this level of investment, service providers are eager to get on with the installation of their systems.

The Federal Telecommunication Act of 1996

On February 8, 1996 with much fanfare, a sweeping revision of the nation's telecommunications regulations was signed into law.[14] This legislation advances the deregulatory thrust evident in the telecommunications provisions of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. The synopsis of Telecommunication Act of 1996 reads as follows:

An Act to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies.

The Act amends many provisions of the Telecommunication Act of 1934 that were held to be outmoded and restrictive. Proponents of this legislation believe that deregulation will generate increased competition and investment in new services which will lead, in turn, to lower prices and greater customer choice. Critics fear that an industry driven by market forces will not equitably serve the needs of all customers and that even larger telecommunications quasi-monopolies will emerge through unregulated mergers and acquisitions. It is too early to judge the ultimate impact of the new legislation, but there is no doubt that it is a major factor in the current revolution in telecommunications.

Figure 2: A gallery of typical cellular antenna structures.[13]

There is one set of provisions in the Telecommunication Act of 1996 which has particular import for local governmental entities. In most communities, the prospect of a new wireless antenna siting is greeted with considerable alarm and dismay. Concerns of the residents fall into two categories. For some, the potential visual impact of large and obtrusive structures is a threat to property values and aesthetic well being (see Figure 2). For others, proximity to an antenna is seen to be a health and safety hazard. In particular, there is widespread public anxiety about the incontrovertible as well as conjectural ill effects of exposure to electromagnetic radiation and electromagnetic fields. Not surprisingly, leaders in the telecommunications industry fear that contentious community hearings, inflexible zoning restrictions, and capricious decisions by local authorities will be the chief impediments to the full deployment of new wireless technologies. These fears are addressed with considerable vigor in Section 704 of Telecommunication Act. While it affirms local zoning authority in the following amendment to Section 332(c) of the Telecommunications Act of 1934:

General authority.--Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities.

It goes on in the following amendments to establish strict mandates for local zoning authorities:

Limitation.--
(i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof--
(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and
(II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.
(ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request.
(iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.
(iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's [15] regulations concerning such emissions.
(v) Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the Commission for relief.

Even a cursory perusal of this language suggests the scope of the challenge facing municipal officials. With some urgency, every community will have to formulate a clear, flexible and unbiased telecommunications policy or it will be buried in costly and interminable litigation.

What is Broadband PCS?

Why is there much interest in Broadband PCS? The question may be answered on several levels. At one level, PCS is the logical evolution of the now ubiquitous first-generation paging and cellular phone systems. The new allocations certainly provide the opportunity to add much needed capacity in densely populated urban environments. At another level, PCS is much more than an expanded mobile phone system, since it builds on a base of increasingly sophisticated digital technology. First-generation AMPS systems are based a well established, but inflexible analog technology optimized for voice communication. To some extent, first-generation systems are now being modified and updated to incorporate some attributes of digital technology, but PCS systems are designed from the ground up to provide spectrally-efficient, integrated voice, data, and image communication. Digital communication is inherently flexible and, thus, PCS users will be able to tailor services to meet individual needs. For example, the assignment of unique PCS telephone numbers (PCN) to individual subscribers will facilitate call initiation and completion across regional, national, and international borders.

At a more far reaching level, the advent of PCS may completely change the structure of telecommunication services. It may be argued that PCS wireless systems may substantially displace conventional wired telephone service in the relatively near future. To quote Brian Newman in his informative essay on PCS,[16]

Companies who have existing cellular operations need additional licenses in areas not covered by their cellular systems to establish a national "footprint." A national footprint is valuable because it generates revenue directly to the firm and cuts out middlemen in reciprocal service agreements. AT&T' strategy is an example of this.

Other telecommunications companies, including competitive access providers (CAPs), look at PCS as an alternative means to get into local telephone service. CAPs are companies who want to provide competitive local telephone serve, rather than long-distance. Local telephone service is still protected as a monopoly in many states, but this is changing rapidly PCS systems are being designed that facilitate lower-cost fixed radio access as an alternative to wired local telephone systems. There is strong potential in this market given the consumer dissatisfaction with current telephone service providers.

Clearly, no one can predict with any accuracy how these forces will play out, but many companies and investors are "betting-the-store" on the proposition that PCS will revolutionize the way we think about communication. The Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA) predicts a soaring growth in wireless communication over the next decade (see Table 2).

Table 2: PCIA Forecast of Market Demand for PCS Technologies [17]
Service	1994 Subscriptions (millions)	2000 Subscriptions (millions)	2005 Subscriptions (millions)
New PCS	N/A	14.8	39.4
Cellular	23.2	46.9	65.4
Narrowband Paging	24.5	56.2	92.2
One-way	24.5	48.1	71.0
Two-way	N/A	8.1	21.2
Total Services	47.7	117.9	197.0

THE PROJECT '97 DESIGN TASK

In the broadest sense, the goal of Project '97 is to find means for helping communities cope with ramifications of new developments in wireless communication. Pursuant to this goal, the design seminar will function much like an engineering consulting group working at the behest of a local governmental entity. The putative "customers" are the municipal planners and regulatory authorities responsible for the drafting, enactment, and implementation of zoning regulations and other ordinances bearing on the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities. Ordinarily, these officials deal with traditional land-use issues and work within a well established framework of law, politics, and commerce. In dealing with wireless issues, local officials will, perforce, have to ponder, debate and adjudicate matters involving unfamiliar, complex and rapidly changing factors. Potential service providers have major financial interests at stake and can marshal impressive legal and technical resources when negotiating with, or contending against governmental bodies. Most communities are just beginning to recognize the scope of this matter and are starting to look for advice from objective sources. Project '97 aims to provide tools which will give local officials objective technical information as foundation for their deliberations and to facilitate long-term planning. As the first step in their role of engineering consultants, Project '97 participants will confer with officials in local communities to get a first-hand look at the problem from the customer's point of view. An engineer can speculate on the kinds of resources that might be helpful, but the product of any design process will be useless unless it serves real needs of real customers.

It is will be particularly important for municipal officials to be cognizant and kept abreast of the evolving structure of the telecommunications industry -- a formidable assignment. At the moment the picture is somewhat chaotic and it is difficult to assess how various trends will play out. Huge amounts of money are being invested. Competition is going to be fierce as each of the six or more wireless licensees in a given local market contend to find a profitable niche. At the outset, each of the PCS providers will be looking to gain competitive advantage by expanding the capacity and enhancing the quality of cellular telephony, but, as noted earlier, some of these companies may have the additional objective of developing systems which will effectively bypass the existing wired telephony systems. Thus, it is quite likely that various providers will have very different business strategies and will deploy rather different sorts of facilities. In particular, a system designed to displace the wired phones would likely cover the whole community from the outset and involve numerous small scale cells with relatively simple, unobtrusive base station facilities. Conversely, companies seeking to capitalize on the demand for cellular service will probably "buildout" from high demand areas -- viz. major highway, office buildings, shopping centers, sports facilities, etc.

ORGANIZATION OF PROJECT '97 AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTICIPANTS

To recapitulate, the ultimate scope of the Project '97 product will evolve out of consultations with municipal officials and analysis of the what is needed by them, but as presently envisaged it will be a integrated suite of software tools and supporting documentation to facilitate the work of these local planners and regulatory authorities. One element of the suite might be, for example, a simple tool to assess the potential microwave radiation hazard in the vicinity of a proposed antenna. Another element might be a tool that would make use of commercial, population and topographical data in estimating the potential number of wireless facilities likely to be deployed in a given community. A third element might be a data base of "antenna stealth technology" -- i.e. various ways in which antennas have been, or could be disguised as trees, on telephone poles and light standards, in church steeples, on roofs, etc. As is the case in every aspect of real-world engineering design, delineating the problem and assessing customer need is the first and crucial step in the design process.

The detailed objectives and structure of the design task will be determined by participants in the early weeks of the design seminar, but it is clear at the outset that the task has four major dimensions -- viz.

Technical aspects of communication processes and systems,
Health and safety concerns,
Federal, state and local regulatory environments,
Business factors.

Accordingly, the design seminar is to be organized to reflect the four-fold dimensionality of the design task. As illustrated in Figure 3, participants will work in four distinct groups and a set of background lectures will be structured as four minicourses. Functioning as moderately independent units, these working groups will be responsible for developing relevant knowledge bases in each domain and for the design of appropriate product subsystems. Members of each group are expected to work together and to arrange their own work schedule, division of labor, meeting times, etc. A design task of this magnitude can only be achieved as a collaborative enterprise. It is essential that all participants work cooperatively and that their activities be well coordinated. The operations of the working groups will be coordinated in three ways:

One member of each group will present a review the group's activities at a weekly meeting of the entire design seminar;[18]
A record of the discussions at these weekly meetings will be published on the Project '97 web page;[19]
Each group will delegate a representative to serve on a system integration committee, to be called the Board of Project Coordinators (as suggested by the brown lines in Figure 3).

The precise role of this board will evolve in time, but it is clear from past experience that there are bound to be many system integration issues to resolve. For example, it will be a critical matter to resolve, early on, compatibility issues relating to the overall structure of the product's software.

Figure 3: Organization of Design Seminar.

Working Groups

The agendas for the working groups will evolve, but the following list suggests some of the possible subtasks each group will need to consider:

Technical (T) Team:

Prepare to serve as seminar resource on electromagnetic radiation -- viz. develop an understanding of the characteristics of wireless antennas and models of electromagnetic propagation in urban environments.

Prepare to serve as seminar resource on the technical characteristics of cellular/PCS systems -- e.g. develop an understanding of cellular architectures, various multiple access schemes (FDMA, TDMA and CDMA), network protocols (AMPS/NAMPS,

IS-54/-I36, IS-95, GSM, DCS 1800, and PDC), etc.
Develop a data base of base station equipment vendors and product specifications -- viz. what do antennas look like and how do they perform?.

Develop a data base of "antenna stealth technology."

Build a computer simulation to enable customers to estimate the wireless signal strength from a given antenna in terms of distance from the antenna, the height of antenna, topographical and other environmental factors.

Health and Safety (H&S) Team:

Prepare to serve as seminar resource on potential health hazards of electromagnetic radiation.

Prepare to serve as seminar resource on potential safety hazards associated with antenna structures.

Review FCC and other standards regarding the health effects of radio and microwave frequency emissions.

Review antenna construction standards.

Build a computer simulation to enable customers to assess the potential microwave radiation hazard in the vicinity of a given antenna configuration.

Government (G) Team:

Prepare to serve as seminar resource on issues relating to governmental oversight of wireless systems and facilities -- i.e. who regulates what and how?

Build a data base of relevant federal and state regulations and statutes.

Build a data base of zoning regulations and other ordinances bearing on the siting of wireless facilities

Formulate the Project '97 product specification based on a review of relevant case studies and interviews with local city and town officials.

Business (B) Team:

Prepare to serve as seminar resource on issues relating to business opportunities in the wireless telecommunications market.

Survey the possible types of wireless services to be offered by PCS providers.

Survey the business environment to identify the major companies involved and their likely business strategies.

Build a model to display the probable growth in demand for wireless services in a given community: a model that takes into account population density, commercial activity, disposable family income, major highways, etc.

Minicourses

As suggested by the thin blue lines in Figure 3, the minicourses are intended as "bare bones" introductions to each subjects for all seminar participants and, as suggested by the thick red lines, it is expected that individual working groups will continue to work closely with the "experts" responsible for the minicourses. It is likely that many "experts" will eventually contribute in each domain, but the following people have already committed time to the project:

Technical overview

Lee M. Fenster, RF Engineer, AT&T Wireless Services

R. Victor Jones, Robert L. Wallace Professor of Applied Physics, Harvard University

Health and safety hazards overview

Frederick H. Abernathy, Abbott and James Lawrence Professor of Engineering, Harvard University

Richard Wilson, Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics, Harvard University

Regulatory and political overview

Mary T. Feeney, University Attorney, Harvard University

Susan Glazer, Director, Current Planning, City of Newton

Neil MacGaffey, GIS Administrator, City of Newton

Alan McClennen, Director of Planning and Community Development, Town of Arlington

Business overview

Frederick H. Abernathy, Abbott and James Lawrence Professor of Engineering, Harvard University

Janet M. Constantin, Senior Analyst, Wireless/Mobile Communications, The Yankee Group

Andrew LeBlanc, Harvard Law School

Mark Lowenstein, Vice President, Wireless/Mobile Communications, The Yankee Group

Sydney Topol, CEO emeritus, Scientific-Atlanta

Footnotes

[1] The recent discord in the nearby town of Rockport, Massachusetts epitomizes some of the fundamental conflicts facing many communities - see The Boston Globe, January 9, 1997 (p. D2) under the lead "AT&T's Wireless PCS units sues Rockport over tower site dispute: Town board says it would hurt area's character."

[2] The allocation was later expanded to 832 duplex channels. The total bandwidth of each channel is 30 kHz. The mobile cellular units transmit in the 824-849 MHz range and the base station units transmit in the 869-894 MHz range.

[3] For example, the so called Improved Mobile Telephone System (IMTS), initiated in 1969, operating on a set of channels near 450 MHz. It provided, perhaps, a dozen present day cellular channels for simultaneous use over an entire metropolitan area.

[4] A precise description of how the electromagnetic signal depends on distance is quite complex and involves essential elements such as radiated frequency, terrain, building density, etc.. For flat terrain and for relatively far from the antenna, an inverse fourth-power of the distance is a reasonable first approximation. For an excellent overview of propagation models see Wireless Channels: Radio Propagation Models.

[5] For historic accuracy, it should be noted the rules governing commercial cellular radio telephone service were formally adopted by the FCC in 1981 based on trials in several metropolitan areas conducted in the late seventies -- for more background on cellular telephony see the Cellular Radio Fact Sheet.
[6] From data provided by the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA). The current estimate is some 28,000 new cellular phone subscriptions per day.

[7] The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.

[8] The authorization of competitive bidding was significant break with historic precedent. Until 1993, the FCC had awarded licenses on the basis of lengthy comparative hearings on merit or lotteries. In the US, wireless licenses had never before been seen as a source of government revenue.

[9] For more information see the Auctions Fact Sheet.

[10] The following non continental locations are also designated as MTAs: Honolulu, Puerto Rico-U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam-N. Mariana Islands, and American Samoa.
[11] To be explicit, the local MTA (M008) is designated as the Boston-Providence region and encompasses the following BTAs: Bangor, ME (B030); Boston, MA (B051); Hyannis, MA (B201); Keene, NH (B227); Lebanon-Claremont, NH (B249); Lewiston-Auburn, ME (B251); Manchester-Nashua-Concord, NH (B274); Pittsfield, MA (B351); Portland-Brunswick, ME (B357); Presque Isle, ME (B363); Providence- Pawtucket, RI and New Bedford, MA (B364); Springfield-Holyoke, MA (B427); Waterville-Augusta, ME (B465); Worcester-Fitchburg-Leominster, MA (B480).

[12] For more information on FCC auctions see Auction Results.

[13] See The ABCs of communications towers for an excellent introduction to antenna characteristics and nomenclature.

[14]The Telecommunications Act 0f 1996

[15] That is The Federal Communications Commission.

[16] See Specific Information on PCS.

[17] Taken from The Personal Communication Industry Association.

[18] All seminar participants will be required to give one or more of these extremely important weekly presentations. Presenters will be expected to review the totality of their working group's activities, to carefully organize what they want to say, and to say it clearly. When appropriate, presenters should make use of well designed overhead transparencies, computer projections and other audio/visual aids. While important in their own right as coordinating events, these presentations are looked upon as essential preparatory experiences leading up to a final Project '97 presentation by all participants before a general audience.

[19] This web page entry will be the responsibility of a recorder who will be selected by lottery each week from among the participants.

Go to the Project'97 WWW Links Page

Return to the Engineering Sciences 96 Home Page

(Visitors since March 7, 1997)

This page is maintained by R. Victor Jones, jones@deas.harvard.edu.
Last updated March 7, 1997