Archive for September, 2007

Friday in the white spaces

By On September 14, 2007 In broadcasting, main page, white spaces With 3 Comments Permanent Link to Friday in the white spacesPermalink

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.”

The litigation begins

By On September 14, 2007 In communications policy, fcc, main page With 2 Comments Permanent Link to The litigation beginsPermalink

The received wisdom last month was that the carriers wouldn’t challenge the 700 MHz auction rules because they wouldn’t want to be seen as getting in the way of the DTV transition.

The received wisdom was wrong. Thanks to FreePress for the word that Verizon Wireless has filed a petition in the D.C. Circuit claiming that the “open platforms for devices and applications” portions of the auction rules (the “no locking, no blocking” rules):

exceed the Commission’s authority under the Communications Actviolate the United States Constitution

violate the Administrative Procedure Act

and are arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence and otherwise contrary to law.

Just as a guess, I’d say that VZ Wireless intends to claim that, as in Fox v. FCC, the Commission simply invented these rules (which are a change from the way the wireless carriers have been allowed to act to date) without having enough evidence on which to do so.

And they’ll also claim that wireless carriers are “speakers” under the First Amendment and should not be compelled to allow applications and devices to attach to their networks.

They’ll probably also claim that there was inadequate notice of these (hardly dramatic) new rules – something like that – and that that violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

The “exceeding authority” idea is interesting. The last well-known case that questioned the FCC’s authority to regulate anything that had something to do with communications was the D.C. Circuit’s broadcast flag opinion in the early summer of 2005.

So we’re in for some delay. The very modest, much-less-than-halfway measures taken by the Commission are under attack – which shows how vitally uninterested these incumbents are in having their business models undermined. Even for a tiny piece of spectrum. Even when they already have all the frequencies they need. This will be well worth paying attention to.

Pause

By On September 13, 2007 In main page, music With 4 Comments Permanent Link to PausePermalink

Here’s a vignette for you:

When [Jacqueline du Pré] was six years old, the story goes, she went into her first competition as a cellist, and she was seen running down the corridor carrying her cello above her head, with a huge grin of excitement on her face. A custodian, noting what he took to be relief on the little girl’s face, said, “I see you’ve just had your chance to perform!” And Jackie answered, excitedly, “No, no, I’m just about to!”

Today in the white spaces

By On September 11, 2007 In main page, white spaces With 1 Comment Permanent Link to Today in the white spacesPermalink

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.

Tying things together

By On September 11, 2007 In main page, network neutrality With 3 Comments Permanent Link to Tying things togetherPermalink

It’s clear that last week’s Dept. of Justice filing hewed very closely to arguments often made by AT&T and others opposing any form of limitation on their ability to prioritize communications on their networks.

But it may be too easy to say that DOJ is in thrall to AT&T. This may be part of something much more significant.

The Bells, Hollywood, and law enforcement all have strong interests in controlling online communications. The internet disrupts their business models. We can see this in the AT&T fight against network neutrality (and the Pearl Jam story); in the studios’ determination to blame P2P software for every form of sin and every possible security risk; and in law enforcement’s desire to ensure that all highspeed internet communications have a back door that makes them easily tappable — as well as to ensure (see n.20 of the DOJ filing) that “public safety” packets get priority.

Non-neutrality writ large, which carries with it the ability to impose differential “quality of service” treatment on different packets, serves the interests of all three of these groups.

Non-neutrality also serves the interests of those who would like (more generally) to see the internet morphed into something much more akin to the current wireless model here in the US: a fully-monetized network, permitting use of particular applications that share their revenues with the network access provider. (This network would not be the same thing as the internet.)

Another document came out last week that ties this all together. It’s from the ITU, and it’s called “Trends in Telecommunication Reform 2007: The Road to Next-Generation Networks (NGN).”

The ITU defines “NGN” as a network that provides quality-of-service-enabled transport technologies. The idea is that packet transport will be “enriched with Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) to ensure Quality of Service (QoS).”

Translation, as far as I can tell: packet transport becomes the same as circuit-switched transport. Prioritization is controlled; it’s a network optimized on billing.

Now, the ITU has been working on “NGN” for an awfully long time. It holds many many meetings about it. It takes a lot of work to change an open system into a cellphone system. But a cellphone system would put the network operators (and their friends in Hollywood, and law enforcement), back in charge of communications. They’d be able to charge whatever they want, outlaw whatever they want (eg, unwanted P2P communications, non-CALEA-compliant communications), and generally run the show they way they used to in the old days. It’s not clear that the “road to NGN” will ever actually be followed.

The DOJ filing is another step along that road. It parrots AT&T, but it may be tied to a much larger incumbent agenda around the world.

White spaces legislation

By On September 7, 2007 In main page, white spaces With 4 Comments Permanent Link to White spaces legislationPermalink

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.

In motion

By On September 5, 2007 In main page With 2 Comments Permanent Link to In motionPermalink

Today was a good day because I got the chance to talk about how the
internet works with a class of law students. But now it’s
time to move on, no time to blog, and I’ll be back writing here
tomorrow.

For a break, go look at Jeremy Denk‘s last two
entries.

More on peering

By On September 4, 2007 In broadband, communications, communications policy, internet policy, main page With 2 Comments Permanent Link to More on peeringPermalink

I remember being told three years ago that, in general, internet backbone issues weren’t really a subject for regulatory involvement, and didn’t need to be. Although the last mile was a problem, the upstream fat-pipe relationships weren’t – they were all competitive and thriving. Or at least that’s what people thought.

Over the last couple of days I’ve been looking around trying to figure out what the facts are about backbones and peering. It seems that we don’t even know what we don’t know (“we” being the public). It’s an interesting area. Wikipedia has a good article on peering, but I can’t find a visualization of data (or even the data itself).

CAIDA makes clear, via kc claffy, that data about what happens on backbones is not available to us or, more importantly, to researchers. Gordon Cook says that everything about prices for backbone carriage is secret.

Why does this matter? Perhaps this is too simple, but if large ISPs (including traditional incumbent telephone companies, here or in other countries) have the market power to refuse to carry the traffic of smaller/competitive ISPs, or to condition the carriage of this traffic on agreement to particular discriminatory policies, then the neutrality problem just goes up a level. It ceases to be a “last mile” problem and becomes a backbone problem. If all arrangements carried out by large carriers are private and secret, then there isn’t even a platform for a policy discussion – traffic carried by (say) nondiscriminatory, smaller ISPs will just go more slowly.

In a way, the backbone issue (if there is one) potentially bears the same relationship to “network neutrality” that government ownership/control of spectrum bears to our current scuffles over spectrum policy: we may be missing an enormous part of the issue without knowing it. It’s as if we’re trying to describe the “issue,” the small vessel of points and counterpoints, without seeing that the vessel is housed in a gigantic, fortress-like, and mostly secret building.

(In America, as in many other places, our government controls a huge amount of spectrum without paying for it or even carrying its value on its books. Or even making precisely clear how much it really controls.)

So maybe I’m misunderstanding the importance of this issue, or maybe there really is a competitive backbone marketplace out there. But I wish there was more information about this. It seems fundamental.

Newer Entries →