Posted on November 13, 2008 by David Oxenford

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.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on July 25, 2007 by David Oxenford

The 700 Mhz Controversy - Fighting Over the Reclaimed TV Spectrum

There are no items on the agenda for next week's FCC meeting from the Media Bureau, so one might think that the "broadcast" community could ignore this meeting.  However, there is one matter that will be considered that may well have an effect on the media landscape for the foreseeable future.  That is the adoption of service rules for the 700 MHz spectrum - the remaining portion of the spectrum to be reclaimed from television broadcasters after the digital transition.  Part of that spectrum has already been reclaimed and is beginning to be used by companies such as Qualcomm offering digital multimedia services such as the MediaFLO system, about which we have written before.  The remaining portion of the spectrum that will be auctioned by the Commission by January 2008 and has the potential to provide significant high-speed digital wireless services to the public.   However, anyone reading the communications press would realize that there is a major controversy over how that service will be provided.

The argument is over whether service will be provided on the new spectrum in an open manner - in essence a wireless high speed connection to the Internet where any service can get direct access to the consumer - or whether it will function more like the current systems run by the existing wireless carriers, where the carriers will be able to control the content that will be delivered to the consumer.  This is, by no means an easy decision, and it is currently being debated in Congress and at the FCC.

 

Users of the Internet, led by Google, have argued for an open system, where a subscriber pays for access to the wireless spectrum, and can essentially connect any device or receive any service, just as long as it does not damage the network.  This is much like the current wired telephone network, where a consumer can connect a telephone or a fax machine or a laptop computer and get access to the network.  Proponents of this model contend that it will encourage technological development as companies compete to develop different applications that can run on the network,and provide a "third pipe" into the home providing high speed Internet access to compete with that provided by cable and telephone companies.  Some might assume that content providers like broadcasters would favor that open approach so that their content can be easily delivered to the consumer, without the broadcaster having to cut any sort of deal with the network provider to get access.

However, many of the existing wireless providers have opposed such open access.  In order to build out a tremendously expensive nationwide system high speed wireless system on these channels, the carriers need an incentive to make that investment.  If the carriers are expected to build out the system and then open access to any content provider at no cost, in essence the operator of the system is subsidizing the operations of the content provider by freely transporting their content to the user.  If the carrier is not making money off of the content that is provided on the network, the amount the government will receive from the auction will be less, as the carriers will not have the ability to fully to monetize the system in the way that current wireless carriers do.  The expectation would also be that buildout, especially to rural areas where there are fewer subscribers to pay for access to a wireless service, will be much slower than might otherwise occur.  When one of the hoped for benefits of the wireless service is access to the Internet in rural areas, the regulators would hope to avoid disincentives to the provision of such service.  While some content providers might say that access to rural areas will not provide the anticipated benefits if it is not full and open access to the entire Internet, others will retort that some access is better than no access at all.  And many broadcasters have found that existing wireless carriers are open to deals with broadcasters, as they want to feature the local content that the broadcaster can deliver.

The arguments come in all shades and with many nuances - as some carriers have now come out in favor of some degree of open access, while some content providers are pushing for a totally open system where parties can come in and lease access from a network at wholesale prices to provide their own services.  The arguments being made on both sides are incredibly technical, with good points being made by all parties.  And there is lots of money at stake, as the spectrum is expected to fetch billions of dollars for the Federal government at auction..  For the broadcaster, future access to the consumer may be at stake, not only for the broadcaster and new digital services that it may want to provide, but also for the new media content providers who are more and more becoming the broadcaster's competition.  So the decisions made in the next few weeks as to how this service develops will have profound impact on the entire communications industry.  Thus, while next week's meeting may look like one that a broadcaster can ignore, in fact the broadcaster's attention should be focused on the developments regarding this spectrum. 

Tags: , , , , , , ,