Google and the white spaces
The white spaces proceeding is the next big opportunity for experiments in alternative ways of providing wireless highspeed internet access. I’ve written about this here, here, here, and here.
When the DTV transition happens in Feb. 2009, channels 2 through 51 will remain allocated for television transmission. Few of the nation’s television markets actually use 49 channels. Indeed, most use less than half of that number. The “white spaces” are these unused television channels, which amount to approximately 300 MHz of frequencies. According to Blair Levin, “[e]stimates vary, but most of the population (between 73% and 97%) lives in areas with access to 24 MHz or more of white space. Rural areas in particular, have a great deal of white space as they generally have fewer television broadcasters.” Rules for the “white spaces” are now on the Commission’s agenda.
Rather than being sold at auction to the highest bidder, unlicensed spectrum is useable by anyone with wireless equipment that has been certified by the FCC for unlicensed frequencies. A key advantage of unlicensed spectrum is that experiments in new technology can be carried out without asking the permission of spectrum licensees. To date, we have made very little spectrum available for unlicensed use and experimentation.
The FCC has the discretion to decide whether the digital television “white spaces” may be used on an unlicensed basis. Its own Spectrum Policy Task Force recommended in 2002 that such a step be taken. Indeed, in trying to stave off an auction rule in the 700 MHz proceeding that would have dedicated non-built-out spectrum to unlicensed uses, Verizon affirmatively argued that the Commission would be opening up the white spaces on an unlicensed basis – thus making such a rule for the 700 MHz auction unnecessary.
Beginning in 2004, the FCC asked for comments on uses of the white spaces, itself suggesting that unlicensed uses of these white spaces would be appropriate. The Commission recognized that the “significant growth of and consumer demand for unlicensed wireless broadband applications” supported opening up the white spaces for broad ranges of unlicensed use. Two years later, the FCC backtracked somewhat from its earlier wholehearted endorsements of unlicensed uses of the white spaces, saying (1) that, at the most, only “fixed” (non-portable) unlicensed uses should be allowed, and, even more disconcertingly, (2) that it is not confident any unlicensed uses are appropriate in the white spaces. The FCC is concerned about the possibility of interference among the transmissions of various users of the white spaces.
So this is a proceeding about almost 300 MHz of spectrum (and all the fighting over the C Block concerned just 22 MHz). It will be in “swiss cheese” (non-contiguous) form, but there will be a great deal of it. Using white space spectrum as a way to provide last-mile connectivity to wired Internet access nodes would be especially valuable in rural areas where those wired nodes are scarce and there is a great deal of vacant TV spectrum.
Today’s update is that Google is making concrete statements about its plans should the FCC allow for unlicensed use of some portion of the white spaces. (Here’s the company’s filing with the FCC.) Google suggests that there should be allocations for both portable and fixed unlicensed uses. (We need portable devices - they’ll be cheap and there’s a huge market for them. Without portable devices, this market just won’t take off.)
Google suggests that *all* devices for unlicensed use of the white spaces should be required to receive an “all clear” signal for the particular channel where they wish to operate, by using geolocation, checking a database of licensees in that location, and getting permission in advance. Wireless mics could send a signal (called a “beacon”) saying “don’t transmit here” that would be adhered to by these unlicensed devices. Google further suggests that no unlicensed device would be permitted to transmit at all in channels 36-38. The company makes the rural argument, pointing out that Android-powered handsets would be a good way of providing low-cost mobile broadband coverage for everyone. And it’s promising to provide technical assistance to people and manufacturers who want to exploit unlicensed white spaces.
Interestingly, the company is suggesting that this combination of geolocation, beacons, and databases will allow the FCC (eventually) to be comfortable with unlicensed devices that just use spectrum sensing. They’ll have so much data about interference successes etc. that they’ll see that interference can be dealt with just by spectrum sensing.
Once we’ve done all this experimentation with the white spaces, we may be in a better position to use *licensed* spectrum more wisely without causing interference. Google points out that they could use dynamic auctions to allocate spectrum on a real-time basis - the idea is that the licensee could grant the right to transmit an amount of power for a specified unit of time, subject to a cap.
Bottom line: This is a compromise proposal designed to assuage objectors and nudge the country down a path towards more efficient use of spectrum, both licensed and unlicensed. It will be interesting to see how the Commission responds. I’ve heard that there’s a welcoming mood over there for unlicensed uses.
Follow the money
I’m on a panel next week that is nominally about virtual worlds but seems infinitely expandable, so I’m planning to talk about FCC regulation. It’s a Ripley’s Believe It Or Not! kind of approach.
You’ll recall that a petition was filed earlier this fall asking that the FCC require email forwarding. There was even a frisson of Congressional interest. I went back and looked at the filed comments. You may have all thought this was a pretty silly petition, but Verizon, Time Warner, AT&T, NCTA, USISPA, ITIC, and a bunch of individuals thought the issue was close enough (and the Commission is unpredictable enough) that they needed to weigh in. Meanwhile, the petitioner remains outraged (petitioner’s follow-up letter here) — particularly irritated that Time Warner is now paying a gaggle of lawyers to make elaborate legal arguments about the appropriateness of government intervention when it could have simply solved her problem through better customer service.
Time Warner’s elegant opposition:
[C]ompetitive choices already afford consumers the “e-mail address portability” that the Petition would have the Commission establish through a rulemaking. Thus, proceeding down this path would result in no discernable benefit for consumers and in fact would harm their interests by placing substantial operational and compliance burdens on service providers that could only increase costs to end users and curtail the degree of choice available in the marketplace today. The result would be a net loss for consumers as well as for the Commission, which would have wasted valuable resources in pursuit of an outcome that market forces already have produced.
The Petition is more than an invitation to make bad policy—it would represent an unprecedented (and likely unlawful) jurisdictional stretch. The Commission has never sought to regulate the provision of e-mail addresses and, as explained below, it lacks any jurisdictional basis on which to do so.
Verizon continues the jurisdictional argument:
Although Title I grants the ommission general jurisdiction over interstate or foreign communications by wire, this jurisdiction can only be asserted if it is “reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of [the Commission’s] various responsibilities.” This requirement is not satisfied here because email address portability is not mandated by any statutory provision. Further, the proposed regulation is inconsistent with the deregulatory regime that Congress has mandated for the Internet and Commission has adopted for information services.
You get the gist. Lots of opposition to this petition, and, as ITIC wryly points out, even parties who don’t usually agree with one another agree that the “Commission’s jurisdiction to require email forwarding is, at best, questionable.” But it’s questionable enough, there’s enough there to worry about, that they all hauled out their guns and filed.
Okay, so maybe the Commission won’t go into the business of regulating email. There are other ways for regulatory pressure to be brought to bear on online applications - try access charges.
I’m new to this subject, so forgive me if I get this wrong. As I understand it, local phone companies charge a lot to long distance companies to connect (”terminate”) the calls that come in from them. To protect ISPs from these exorbitant access charges, the FCC some time ago declared that “Enhanced Service Providers” (including ISPs) are treated as local phone customers and are exempt from interstate access charges paid by carriers. Thus, rather than paying higher access charges, ISPs simply purchase phone lines from the local phone company as any local business would do.
Now, what if the Enhanced Service Provider is in the business of making it possible for virtual world denizens to call traditional phone numbers? (You can see that this quickly becomes a bigger issue about the interface between internet “calls” of all kinds and the phone system.) What if you want to set things up so that your guild can ping your mobile phone, or your virtual workgroup can get in touch with you over your handset? Alerts? Video hookups, one end of which is using a traditional phone number? A Skype call to your cellphone?
W ell, AT&T in Texas is taking the position that in order to qualify for the access charge exemption, the call coming in has to be associated with a traditional local phone number. So unless your guild has a number, it will be subject to these charges. That could be a lot of money, as I understand it. (I’m gleaning this from a petition that was recently filed with the FCC.)
This is a longstanding and hairy issue, involving the construction of interconnection agreements and apparently unlimited acronyms (AUA).
It seems pretty straightforward at bottom, though — not only can traditional phone companies seek to control internet escapades of their customers (through the rejection of network neutrality), but they can also make it really expensive for group/virtual internet escapades of all kinds to reach traditional phone numbers.
I suppose the answer could be “well, leave the phone out! who cares about phones!” But if in the mobile wireless world the “phones” (and the phone numbers) become even *more* salient — if the cellphone internet access model wins out over the open internet access model — this kind of monetary hold-up could be extremely destructive.
Which is why we need unlicensed access to the white spaces..but even I may not be able to fit that topic into a panel on virtual worlds.
This week in the white spaces
1. Very large Houses of Worship urge the Commission not to allow unlicensed use of the white spaces. They point out that they have sophisticated systems:
Many houses have footprints larger than multiple football fields and hold pew-seating for worshipers in the thousands. Typical facilities may include a large stage for the pastor, and stages to accommodate hundred-person choirs, full orchestras, praise teams, a praise band, and complex sound systems. Our experienced technical staffs devote considerable time and effort in planning to ensure highquality productions including interference-free wireless microphone operation.
2. The presidents of News Corp., Disney, CBS, and NBC wrote in, suggesting that the DTV transition is a substantial government/industry investment, and that consumer harm through interference with these TV transmissions should be avoided. Interestingly, they cite the upcoming 700 MHz auction in support of their argument, asserting that the vacated spectrum “will be available for multiple uses, including the same types of broadband services envisioned by those who seek to operate on an unlicensed basis in the digital spectrum allocated for free, over-the-air broadcasting.”
That’s bravura for you. The reason these non-contiguous frequencies are called “white spaces” is that they’re not being actively used by broadcasters. And they got extra spectrum for free for use in the DTV transition - these are the soon-to-be vacated frequencies that are going to be auctioned off in January.
The letter suggests that a “‘fixed’ broadband system, which does not operate on a co-channel or adjacent channel, will help expand broadband opportunities without causing interference to digital television receivers.” The practical translation of requiring only “fixed” devices is that investment in mobile, opportunistic devices for internet access will be limited because the market will be too small to pay off.
3. The cable industry weighed in through its trade association, NCTA:
We discussed the high likelihood that personal, portable TV band devices with high output power will cause direct pickup interference to cable customers’ viewing of cable channels. We explained that for cable operations, there are no “white spaces,” as cable systems utilize every channel in the broadcast spectrum. We expressed the need to significantly lower the output power level of proposed devices…
So cable and broadcast are joining on this issue. This is another way of making portable devices unattractive targets for investment — if they’re so low-power, they won’t be able to do anything useful.
4. Twelve Representatives from Texas and Ohio recently wrote in voicing concern over the use of unlicensed personal-portable devices in the white spaces. Their letter is very similar to the letter from News Corp., Disney, CBS, and NBC above.
5. Broadway theatre producers wrote in in May (but the letter just made it to the ex parte files).
We discussed the importance of maintaining the ability to ensure that Broadway and performing houses around the country may continue to use their wireless microphones without fear of interference. We specifically discussed the need for the Commission to incorporate comprehensive interference protections for these important incumbent services in the upcoming rules for unlicensed devices in these so called “white spaces.” We also reiterated the need to perform on site testing on the proposed mitigation devices in areas such as Broadway where the interference is the greatest.
FCC field trip!
5. The Hill reports today that the broadcasters are delighted to have God, Broadway theater, and sports on their side on this issue.
Friday in the white spaces
Things are heating up in the white spaces proceeding. The Commission will soon have to decide what to do. How will it deal with the conflicting technical evidence on interference, particularly given the abject failure of the Microsoft device last month? Is there a way to slice up the issue so as not to cut off later decisions about unlicensed portable devices? What impact should the broadcasters’ claims about not wanting to delay the DTV transition have, particularly given that the broadcasters themselves will end up (inevitably) delaying the transition themselves? There are no objective answers here. These are all deeply-contested, subjective, political issues.
Filings from the last week:
Google’s Larry Page called Chairman Martin to explain that consumers care about prompt completion of the white spaces proceeding and that new portable devices can avoid interference.
A huge flock of broadcasters (the “Association for Maximum Service Television”), sports leagues, television manufacturers, and others emphasized to the Commission the importance of over-the-air television, “especially during emergencies,” and claimed that the sensing levels the FCC is using to test portable devices don’t adequately protect TV transmissions. They’re also arguing that fixed devices can be used in the white spaces to help rural broadband penetration.
Former Commr. Kathleen Abernathy called in from Akin Gump on behalf of the above-mentioned Association for Maximum Service Television to point out “the need to ensure that the digital television (”DTV”) transition proceeds smoothly” and to note that “the potential for interference caused by mobile devices operating in broadcast spectrum would complicate the transition.”
The presidents of Entravision, Telemundo, TuVision, and Univision wrote in to say that “[b]ecause of [the] very tangible and significant threat of interference to Hispanic television viewers, large numbers of whom continue to be over-the-air viewers, we urge the FCC not to allow the wholesale introduction of untold numbers of personal and portable unlicensed devices into the television band until it can be conclusively demonstrated that they will not interfere with broadcast operations.”
And the New America Foundation makes the key point:
“It is important to bear in mind that “sufficient protection” from harmful interference is not a simple technical matter but a complex question of weighing potential benefits, risks and user expectations. For example, while broadcasters would set standards sensitive enough to protect every out of market signal – however distant – from the risk of intermittent interference, to do so would create such enormous costs and so limit the availability of the spectrum as to render such rules effectively unworkable.”
Today in the white spaces
I spent a lot of energy writing this past summer about how important to experimentation unlicensed uses of the “white spaces” are. And if you search on this blog using “white spaces” you’ll see a number of breathless posts about how key this entire endeavor is.
Now I know I’m right, because today the broadcast industry is marching on Capitol Hill, flags waving, guns booming, to make sure that no one ever gets to use these unused frequencies except them. Their battle cry (invented by me): “If we allow unlicensed, portable uses of these white spaces, broadcast television as we know it will come to an end.” (With thanks to Joel Brinkley’s wonderful book, “Defining Vision.”) If these guys are this worried, something important must be going on.
Great headline in Broadcasting & Cable: TV Industry Storms Hill, FCC Over White Spaces. And this press release from the National Association of Broadcasters: Broadcasters, Sports Leagues, TV Set Makers Unite in Opposition to “White Space” Interference Zones. Hear that coinage? “Interference zones.” These aren’t vacant places, these unused frequencies - they’re places of great danger to all-American television, the thing that gets the words of the elected legislator across to his/her people, the thing we all grew up with. “Hot zones.” “Interference zones.” Get it? Toxic! Destructive!
There’s another side to this battle. The softer-voiced people (who know what they are talking about) at the New America Foundation will calmly tell you (if you are willing to listen) that in fact there are plenty of ways that new portable devices can avoid interfering with your television set. Let’s hope that someone’s listening. This is a central battle for innovation, and surely empirical evidence should carry some weight.
White spaces legislation
This happened earlier this year, but it’s still interesting. Rep. Bobby Rush, in whose district Shure (wireless microphones manufacturer) resides, introduced a bill that would put off even considering having mobile wireless devices in the white spaces until 2012.
What would you do if you were a big online company that wanted to take advantage of the white spaces in an unlicensed way and route around the incumbents? Would you build a new prototype device and try to convince the FCC that the old one was just broken? Would you wait it out until a new administration showed up and hope for better treatment? Would you take Rep. Rush’s bill seriously?
I’m thinking of becoming a ham.
This week in the white spaces
Every once in a while I look in on the white spaces, to see how things are going. You’ll recall that the white spaces are unused, non-contiguous (”swiss cheese” ) frequencies between broadcast stations around the county. Commr. McDowell of the FCC has said that initial rules for the white spaces will be released sometime this fall.
If the white spaces are made available on an unlicensed basis for use by opportunistic, “smart,” low-power mobile devices, entrepreneurial engineers will think of ways to use this wealth of spectrum (300 MHz wide, if fractured) to provide mobile connections to whatever fiber installations are nearest. At the very least, they will experiment — and we could use some experimentation.
But the broadcasters are up in arms over this disruption. They can’t imagine that mobile personal wireless devices won’t interfere with their broadcasts, and they’re positive that unlicensed use of this spectrum shouldn’t be allowed.
This week in the white spaces:
1. Philips Electronics says that its device is super-sensitive to wireless microphones. So all the entertainers and sports announcers (including Wolf Pack Sports and a company handling multimedia rights for college sports teams, filers this week) and clerics can relax - use of the Philips prototype won’t interfere with their lives. Philips also says that it’s time for the FCC to issue its rules allowing unlicensed, portable uses of the white spaces so that devices can be designed and ready for the market in February 2009 - the date of the digital transition.
2. The wireless microphone people don’t agree, and urge the Commission to stop even considering portable unlicensed uses of the white spaces.
3. More seriously, GE Healthcare claims that “controlling the presence of personal/portable devices within the premises of healthcare facilities is an intractable challenge” that will pose risks to medical telemetry (basically measuring information about humans), and argues strongly that the New America Foundation doesn’t understand the healthcare environment.
4. The White Space Coalition (Dell, EarthLink, Google, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Microsoft, and Philips Electronics North America Corp.) checked in with the FCC’s Office of Engineering & Technology to remind that office (probably not for the first time) that requiring too much sensitivity and too low power levels of these opportunistic portable devices was probably a mistake. Decoding: if we require these devices to be so low-power, we won’t be able to do any real experimentation; you’re letting the incumbent broadcasters run the show, when we really should be shifting away from them.
5. The Association for Maximum Service Television and the National Association of Broadcasters (we can refer to these groups, collectively, as the broadcasters) piped up, saying again that personal and portable devices should be prohibited from operating in what they call the “television spectrum”. Decoding: it’s still our spectrum, even though we’re not using it, and if you outlaw portable devices these opportunistic uses won’t take off — people don’t really want fixed devices, they want mobility, and they won’t buy fixed devices in enough numbers to make manufacturing them worth it. The broadcasters are also contesting the sensitivity standards, saying that these devices should be much more sensitive in order to avoid interference with television signals.
If we take this week’s filings as a poetic symbol in small of the entire proceeding, I’d say that we’re headed for delay, or at the most a partial set of October 2007 rules that don’t deal with the unlicensed question - leaving it open for another day. That’s too bad, because we’ll see explosive innovation if these white spaces are unlicensed sooner rather than later.
Let’s hope that Chairman Martin’s inclination to allow unlicensed uses remains strong.
The transition to digital and the death of common sense
Two news items interestingly connect today: First, the airing of Ken Burns’ new documentary, “The War,” is causing broadcasters some anxiety, because it contains four fleeting expletives. From SFGate.com:
Many public broadcasters aren’t sure whether the FCC will fine public television stations for airing ‘The War,’ and the FCC hasn’t revealed its position. That uncertainty is placing the broadcasters in a difficult position. They must either show a documentary in a form other than the artist created, or risk getting hit with large fines for broadcasting naughty words.
And the notion that unlicensed, portable uses of the white spaces might be possible is causing broadcasters some anxiety, because they’re absolutely convinced that these uses will interfere with their programming. From Broadcasting & Cable:
‘[Even if] both the Phillips and Microsoft devices work as advertised, they will still cause interference to over-the air TV reception,’ says David Donovan, who heads the Association for Maximum Service Television.
These poor broadcasters. They’re stuck with an uncertain regulator. They crave protection, they cherish their special status, but they can’t tell what’s going to happen next - and it causes an awful lot of anxiety for them. It’s a schizophrenic existence, being a broadcaster. Your entire existence is predicated on the favors granted you by government.
Surely the broadcasters should cut themselves loose, sell off their airwaves, and retreat to the countryside. Calmer all around.