Communications Insights: Trends and Cool Stuff

For more than nine decades, lawyers, engineers, and economists have argued that radio spectrum regulation is needed due to the fact that without some form of intervention, it is impossible to exclude or limit the use of a common resource such as spectrum.  Without exclusion, users consume the spectrum without regard to their usage’s impact on the benefits obtained by other would-be users.  They, therefore, tend to overuse the spectrum, causing interference to other users.  This reduction in social welfare due to overuse is referred to as the Tragedy of the Commons.However, we can now observe from the debate surrounding the TV White Spaces that the ability to exclude certain users is not sufficient to remedy the Tragedy of the Commons. A relatively small number of over-the-air TV households are able to use these spectrum bands without regard to the costs their use imposes on the rest of Americans.  Indeed, according to the most recent FCC statistics, in 2005 only about 14% (See Appendix B, Table B-1) of US TV households receive their TV over-the-air. The remaining 86% get no direct benefit from this spectrum.

The National Association of Broadcasters is now opposing tests the FCC is currently conducting which will measure the impact of unlicensed use of the White Spaces on digital TV reception. In order to protect digital TV receivers, potential White Space users must be excluded, and the NAB is throwing its weight around to ensure that outcome.  According to a quote from NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton, “We’re not going to be engaging in threats or anything, but about 70 members of Congress have already sent letters in expressing concern.” Well, as I wrote in a previous entry on Cool Stuff, at least one of those 70 letters is total bunk. Nonetheless, the cost to all of society of affording interference protection to this minority must also be considered.

Insight: If the NAB’s argument is accepted without scrutiny, the 14% of TV households will prevent the other 86% of US TV households (plus the TV-less households) from using those radio frequencies for broadband Internet, baby monitors, new forms of low-power broadcast, and other RCS (really cool stuff).  This lost benefit will not be compensated.  The exclusion of certain competing uses is necessary but not sufficient to ensure that society reaps the maximum benefit from the radio spectrum.  A means through which spectrum users can bear the costs they impose on others by excluding them is also necessary.

I finally just had a chance to read the FNPRM for the rules governing the C Block in FCC’s recently concluded 700 MHz Auction and it says “handsets”! Why is this significant?

For the C Block, comprising 22 MHz in the upper 700 MHz band, the FCC created special open access provisions. The FCC will require licensees to provide a platform that is open to third party devices and applications. Specifically, licensees must allow customers, device manufacturers, third-party application developers, and others to use any device or application of their choice on their networks in this band, subject to certain limited conditions. Licensees may not “lock” handsets to prevent their transfer from one system to another, or to other services that compete with wireless service providers’ own offerings. The FCC concluded that these rules were justified because it did not find “that competition in the [mobile] marketplace is ensuring that consumers drive handset and application choices, especially in the emerging wireless broadband market…. it is easy for consumers to differentiate among providers by price, most consumers are unaware when carriers block or degrade applications and of the implications of such actions, thus making it difficult for providers to differentiate themselves on this score.”

Insight: Beware the law of unintended consequences. Here it is not the proverbial monkey wrench, but a pair of bolts, literally, which could bring the FCC’s policy to a grinding halt. Implicit in the service rules is the assumption that the band will evolve to resemble the next generation of the current mobile market in the US. But assumptions like this never last. I wonder if it is possible for clever operator could escape the open handset requirement by providing fixed services. The 700 MHz spectrum is particularly well suited to a variety of applications, one of which might be fixed broadband. In rural and suburban areas fixed wireless broadband could be an effective competitor to wireline. Presumably these areas would be sufficiently competitive that the FCC’s finding would not hold (remember it is limited to handsets, and not even service plans). Thus, if the licensee is bolting “pizza boxes” to the side of homes, would this type of network not be subject to the open access provisions? It’s unclear, but something to think about.

Congressman Jerrold Nadler recently published an Op-Ed in the New York Times. His analysis is so off-the-mark, I felt compelled to respond.

I want to begin with some terminology. He describes the White Spaces as being the “intervals between television channel frequencies.” This could mean the geographic separation between grade contours, the guard bands, or even the blanking intervals in NTSC progressive interlace. At any rate, white spaces are “white” because at a given time and place the frequencies are not being used as carrier waves. If the spectrum is not being used then, by definition, there cannot be interference. And not just interference alone, but harmful interference is the statutory level of protection.Now I am not sure about the previous white space tests, as I lack the engineering experience to adequately review the opinions. But, I have see arguments suggesting the are conclusive and ones stating that they are not dispositive. Either way, technology will eventually overcome these issues. There are, however, more glaring failures of Rep. Nadler’s arguments.

“Microsoft, Google and others are asking permission to use white spaces — free of charge — for millions of unregulated and unlicensed devices for personal networking systems that they would like to sell, including P.D.A.’s, wireless broadband devices and even toys. These devices could disrupt the new digital TV signals that government and industry have spent so much time and money to promote.”

This is misleading by misstatement and by omission. Misstatement: unlicensed devices are not “unregulated”. Omission - the broadcasters did not pay for their spectrum either. Moreover, who cares what the broadcasters sunk costs might be. Suppose Google and Microsoft will spend more to develop more important technologies.

Rep. Nadler goes on to say, “And because these personal devices would be unregistered, there would be no effective way of recalling them or curtailing their use, much less assuring that standards were adhered to their manufacture.” If you read the FCC Part 2 and Part 15 rules you will find that this is dead wrong. When I was at the FCC, I spent a lot of time working on precisely this issue. Before any radio device, be it licensed, unlicensed, or licensed-by-rule, can be imported or marketed in the US, it must be certificated to comply with FCC standards. In addition, users of unlicensed devices have “no vested right to continued operation.” So, if in the future, the FCC decides that white spaces are best left white, it has the power to make operating these devices a crime. When Wi-Fi is outlawed, only outlaws will have Wi-Fi.

Further, without a single iota of economic evidence, Rep. Nadler values digital terrestrial TV over all other uses of the spectrum. Moreover, he values co-primary access according to his own wants and desires. It is a cute device when he argues for the protection of football games and Broadway musicals alike, but this too is misleading. Who is to say that a football game or Broadway show (both of which take place in large controlled Faraday cages) is more important than my wireless email?! I don’t like football, but I like email. How about public safety? I think that’s a better use of the white space. And, would it not be better public policy if we were helping “[l]ow-income households, the elderly and people living in multifamily buildings who don’t have cable service and rely on antenna systems” to get online with cheap unlicensed broadband access, and not to watch more TV?

Finally, if the Broadway star and star quarterback are counting on unfettered spectrum access (a concept whose time has come and gone) they should pay for that access. Otherwise, they should share the spectrum with the rest of us who get great value out of unlicensed use.  Both types of spectrum access will and must coexist in the future.  The future of spectrum policy will not be about “scarecity” or “interference” so much as it will be about coordination of use.

Insight: People, I cannot stress this enough, use your gray matter before you talk about the white space.

No matter what the outcome in November’s presidential election, about a year from now, the FCC will be anticipating the arrival of a new Chairman.  I present the following challenge to the next Chairman, whoever he/she may be: make the US last in the world rankings of per capita broadband adoption.  What?!  Stay with me for a sec.

The FCC defines “broadband” as any access technology providing at least 200kbps in one direction.  This standard was appauling when it was introduced nearly a decade ago;FN1 it is simply laughable now.   Shouldn’t this standard evolve at least a little bit over time?  Consider for a second Moore’s Law on computing per unit cost, which stipulates that preformance roughly doubles every two years.FN2    So, between January 1999 and January 2009, the price preformance of the electronics which enable a broadband connection should have increased by a factor of 32.  Thus, a resonable standard for broadband today would be 6.4 Mbps (200kbps X 2 X 2 X 2 X 2 X 2 = 6,400kbps).  Let’s say I missed my guess by a bit and an appropriate standard is 5 megs.  (Neither a particularly high threshold and about what I get at my home in a small suburb outside of Bonn, Germany.) In that same decade, the US rank in the world in terms of broadband adpotion has fallen from 3rd to 15th to 20th, by some counts.

Insight:  According to the FCC’s most recent data, in December 2006 there were 82.5 million broadband lines in the US.FN3  Using the 5 meg standard this number would drop to roughtly 11.5 million lines.FN4  The effect of reporting this as the number of broadband lines in the US would be to be to drop the US to a per capita broadband adoption rate of Slovakia or Mexico.  Only then would it be undeniable that the US is falling behind in the adoption of next generation networks.  And, only then would the FCC have the imperative necessary to take the steps which other nations are taking and “encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans,” per the FCC’s mandate. 

FN4: This is a bit of a fudge factor, but good enough for the back of the envelope.  Since the FCC only reports lines with speeds between 2.5 megs and 10 megs, I assumed that only 1/4 of the 34.7 million lines in this category were greater than 5 megs - I eyeballed this from the skew of distribution.