Details of White Spaces Decision Released - Don't Look for Them Soon as There is Lots to Do Before Any Devices Will Be Introduced

The FCC this week released the details of its "White Spaces" decision, authorizing the use of both fixed and mobile unlicensed devices within the television spectrum.  In theory, these devices are supposed to be able to sense the existence of television signals so that they can operate on other frequencies and avoid creating interference.  However, as an extra safety measure, the FCC has also required that these devices connect at least once a day with a database of all other protected users of the television spectrum and, by used of geo-location technology, determine what other users are in the area where the "TVBD" (television band device) is being used and operate on frequencies which protect those other users.  Our firm has prepared a memo outlining the full decision.  The Davis Wright Tremaine memo can be found here.  When one reviews the full text of the FCC decision, it becomes pretty clear that we should not look for such devices anytime soon.

While the Commission's order actually discussed in some detail the question of whether these devices should be permitted to operate before the end of the digital television conversion in February 2009, given the issues that still need to be resolved, this discussion really appears to be an academic one.  First, devices that meet all of the FCC requirements have to be designed and built, and type-accepted by the FCC labs.  In a recent article by Shelly Palmer in his well regarded blog on television issues, he suggests that many engineers are convinced that these devices simply will not work.  When one reviews the FCC requirements, one can see why that might be the case.

First, the devices must be designed so that they can determine where they are operating, sense other users of the spectrum, and access the database of other users of the spectrum.  That database has not yet been created, and the FCC has said that it will, by subsequent public notice, solicit private companies to create the database (or databases, as multiple companies may be authorized to maintain competing databases).  The database will list not only full power television stations, but also low power TV stations and TV translators.  And, while in most cases the TVBDs will be required to protect the full-power TV stations only to their protected contour, there will be added protections for stations outside of their protected contours in the path between the TV station and either LPTV or translator stations which pick up these stations off of the air, or cable television system headends which pick up TV station signals.  Thus, the location of cable headends and that of LPTV and TV translators, and the signal paths between them and the stations that they pick up, must all be computed.  In addition, there are Land Mobile radio services that operate in the television band, which will also have to be protected, and entered into the database.  Wireless microphones that operate in the TV band will also be predicted, and sites that regularly use those microphones (e.g. theaters, stadiums, churches) will be eligible for registration in the database.  Even sites that only use those microphones for special events can register for the length of the event.  All of these items will need to be entered into a database that will be accessible by the devices - a project that will obviously take time.

In addition, the devices will not be able to operate in areas near the Canadian and Mexican borders, nor in areas near the "quiet zones" around radio astronomy installations.  The TVBDs will have to be able to determine their locations so, for the most part, they will need outdoor antennas to receive the satellite signals to determine their locations.  Fixed location TVBDs, which can operate at higher power than mobile devices, will also have to register with the FCC so that, if they create interference, they can be located.

With all of these requirements, it will be quite a design feat for engineers to accommodate all of the FCC requirements.  In addition, the FCC will have to complete the regulatory requirements of authorizing the databases.  So don't look for these services to provide broadband access (or any other service) until all of these requirements are met.  And, of course, there still may be legal hurdles to overcome should opponents of the devices appeal the FCC decision.  So stay tuned...

FCC Approves White Spaces Devices in TV Band - While Some Hail a Boon to Wireless Internet, Others Say Not So Fast

At the FCC meeting held on Election Day, the Commission approved the operation of "white spaces" devices in the TV spectrum.  These would be mobile, unlicensed devices that would operate on TV channels that are not used in a particular location.  Many Internet users have hailed the expansion of wireless Internet opportunities that they believe that this decision will bring.  While the FCC promised that these devices would protect television operations and other current uses of the TV Band, many other groups have reacted to the decision far more skeptically.  All in all, we have probably not heard the end of this debate.

The full text of the FCC Order has not yet been released but, from the Public Notice summarizing the action (which came late in the day, after a several hour delay in the start of the FCC meeting), the FCC appears to have made some concessions to the broadcasters who were objecting that the tests of the white spaces devices were not able to adequately sense the presence of television signals in a way that would protect those stations.  So, to protect television signals, the FCC ordered that, in addition to sensing the existence of television signals, the white spaces devices would also have to have geo-location abilities, which would check the location of the device and compare it to a database of television stations and prevent the device from operating on channels that the database shows to be occupied.  Even with this capacity, organizations representing television stations do not believe that this compromise is sufficient to protect those stations.

Broadcasters are particularly concerned with the degree of protection that is to be provided by these devices.  Press reports quote MSTV (an association of television broadcasters) President David Donovan as being particularly concerned with interference that would be caused to television stations operating on channels adjacent to the channel on which the white spaces device would operate, and also expressed concerns about interference to cable boxes and to wireless microphones used by television newsgathering.  The NAB criticized the failure of the Commission to heed Congressional and industry requests to allow comment on the FCC's most recent engineering study on the interference potential of these devices, which was released only a month before the FCC meeting.  Of even more concern to broadcasters was their allegation that the proponents of the white spaces devices ultimate goal was to capture the entire television spectrum for unlicensed wireless devices, relegating TV to being provided by cable or similar subscription delivery systems.  These fears were based on statements made at a conference sponsored by Google and the New America Foundation, organizations backing the white spaces proposals.

 The New America Foundation, on the other hand, claims that broadcasters claims of interference are overstated and incorrect - and are just part of a pattern of the industry trying to block every new technology that could be competitive.  The FCC Commissioners' statements released at the same time as the Public Notice (Martin, Copps,  Adelstein, McDowell, and Tate) also hail the promise of the new technology as a new broadband competitor while claiming that the protections that have been built into the rules will protect broadcasters. 

Even some commentators associated with the broadcast industry have suggested that broadcasters prepare for the coming of this new wireless technology. Mark Ramsey, in his Hear 2.0 blog, urges radio broadcasters to prepare for the coming competition from "wi-fi on steroids" that would be available on these channels.  Jennifer Lane, in her audio4cast blog, while not specifically reacting to this decision but instead to the general availability of wireless Internet options, suggests that radio broadcasters embrace the Internet, introduce their staffs to Internet radio, or otherwise they will be left behind by new digital competition. 

With all the controversy from broadcasters and others concerned about interference and the processes that the Commission followed, the controversy over this decision probably has not ended.  With all of the promises made for the uses of these devices, the supporters of white spaces are also likely to push to implement this ruling as soon as possible.  This may well be one of those issues that the new FCC will have to deal with yet again in the New Year.