I'm sure that the NAB will soon be releasing a flurry of PR decrying the failure of a white space device during FCC testing. Which device, you may ask? Why, the Microsoft one, of course. And which device failed miserably during the first round of FCC testing? Why, the Microsoft one, of course. But didn't a white space device suffer a power failure last month -- which one was that? Why, the Microsoft one, of course.

So what's the National Association of Broadcasters going to go to town on -- declaring that the technology simply won't work based on the failure of a single company's device? Why, yes, you guessed it...

So why is the National Association of Broadcasters spending so much time and energy filling the press with the continuing failure of Microsoft's device? Probably because they're scared as hell that someone might otherwise point out that the DARPA XG Project has already proofed out the viability of white space device technology.

"Hold on a second," you might ask, "white space device technology has already been proofed out and deployed by the military?!?" Indeed! In fact, on September 18, 2006 Shared Spectrum publicly announced the successful testing of DARPA XG technology for battlefield warfare. Assuming for a second that physics works the same for both military and consumer products, if white space device technology works for battlefield warfare, I'm of the opinion that it's going to work in my living room as well. In fact, DARPA XG technology was successfully tested in civilian situations at DYSPAN in Ireland on April 16-20, 2007.

So why is this even an issue? Because physics, reality, precedent, and data are coming up against a monstrously large PR and FUD campaign by one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, DC -- the National Association of Broadcasters. Which begs the question, who sucks even more than Microsoft?

FCC Commissioner McDowell presented at the Tech Policy Summit pointing to the recently announced Comcast/Bittorrent "solution" whereby Comcast would stop degrading Bittorrent traffic as a huge success. Personally, I think the so-called solution does nothing to protect end-users from future malfeasance by network operators, so I asked Commissioner McDowell what the FCC is doing to prevent what will certainly become a data obfuscation arms race from developing. Here's the problem in a few easy-to-understand steps:

1. A network operator discriminates against certain types of traffic.

2. End users begin to encrypt their traffic and pass data from applications and/or services that are discriminated against through an encrypted tunnel (e.g., VPN, SSH, etc.).

3. The network operator is now forced into a fairly problematic decision -- if they don't discriminate against encrypted traffic, more and more services and applications will encrypt their traffic; but if they do discriminate against encrypted traffic, they're saying, in essence, that if you want privacy, you will get worse service.

4. Meanwhile, corporations that rely upon VPN for their everyday dealings, will scream bloody murder; so then network operators are forced into an even more dastardly decision -- discriminate wholesale against classes of users. In other words, all residential-class users will be foisted off into a low-priority tier of service.

So how can this be avoided?

Build capacity.

A great resource discussing the rationality of this solution is David Levinson and Andrew Odlyzko's, "Too expensive to meter: The influence of transaction costs in transportation and communication". But the main issue is that building capacity is the best solution for end users, while the tiering and further commodification of existing bandwidth comes at the literal expense of end users.

A lot of folks have been asking me for my take on the recent Google ex parte filing at the FCC.

Google put in its ex parte on Friday, March 21, 2008. The final draft of the document does reflect some of the input that the New America Foundation provided, but still offers proposals that are particularly discouraging for ad-hoc (decentralized networking).

Here's a brief synopsis:

1. Google (and 30+ other major corporations) are developing an open stack mobile system (a.k.a., the Android phone) as a part of the Open Handset Alliance and want to use the white space as a medium for these new technologies.

2. Google is offering, "to provide, at no cost to third parties, the technical support necessary to make these plans happen; this could include intellectual property and reference designs for underlying technologies, open geo-databases maintained by Google, and other supporting infrastructure."

3. Google is backing Motorola's plan for "a combination of geo-location (to protect broadcast TV) and beacons (to protect wireless microphones)."

4. Google is proposing a safe harbor on channels 36-38 for wireless microphones.

5. Google states that "the combination of geo-location, beacons, and 'safe harbors' is more than sufficient to ensure the protection of all licensed uses."

6. Google reiterates that the technology has already been proofed out in the Darpa XG project and that DARPA XG systems are now in use by the military (the field deployment was new information): "widely used 802.11a-based WiFi currently supports spectrum sensing to protect military radar from interference. Moreover, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) neXt Generation (XG) program has graduated from lab experiments to field use of the technology. Both examples represent an important existence proof for the viability of spectrum sensing, where the risks of failure inarguably are far greater than those potentially posed to broadcast TV and wireless microphones."

7. Google asks for the creation of a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to explore the geolocational/beacon solution.

You can read the March 21, 2008 Google ex parte here.

There's something blatantly wrong about the notion of packing a public meeting with paid seat-warmers -- even more so when these seat-warmers are being paid just to fill seats that would otherwise go to interested public participants. To be clear, members of the public were kept out of the recent hearings because Comcast paid people to take up seats and sleep through the hearing:

Both Conde Nast's Portfolio.com and SavetheInternet.com have been covering the story as it unfolds.

I would hope that the FCC would investigate this behavior -- it makes a joke of the entire notion of a public hearing if the very companies being investigated can pay their way out of a public hearing by packing the room with paid seat-fillers.

For long-time readers, you know that I've been working on the 3650-3700 MHz FCC proceedings for a few years nowthe FCC created a rather unique quasi-(un)licensing rule for the band, allowing community networkers, WISPs, and other interested parties to access this resource. By 2007 we began to see the widespread availability of 3650-3700 MHz equipment.

I've begun to collect data on real-world use of 3650-3700 MHz equipment (yes, it's already being implemented in networks across the country):

WISPs have been leading the charge and people are reporting 15km non-line-of-sight (NLOS) connectivity with 3650-3700 MHz (operating at 10W) -- which is a huge boost over 802.11. Meanwhile, capacity seems to be hovering around 15 Mb per 7.5 MHz (or 20Mb per 10MHz) -- so 100Mb connections over 15km without line of sight are quite feasible using this band. All in all, that's pretty impressive for first-generation equipment. The equipment vendor Aperto is claiming that their new equipment will get 20Mb per 7MHz (so you can see the development curve is already fairly steep).

To give you a feel for the real-world implications, folks testing things out reported, "6mb/s indoor at 2 miles NLOS. The base station was a 1 sector install using diversity at approximately 50ft up on tower using 120 degree sectors" -- try to get that with an 802.11 access point.

Sooner or later metro wireless folks will figure it out (at which point they're deploy like crazy before realizing the capacity limits given population/user density). Meanwhile, I think it's fairly clear vindication as to the import and utility of the band. Hopefully, municipal networkers will check with objective experts before jumping onto what is sure to be a 3650-3700 MHz bandwagon, but all in all, this is great news for wireless networkers everywhere.

From Harold Feld -- lots of amazingly useful info on the pending 700MHz fiasco/proceedings:

Ya know, I had real hopes that, barring a Petition for Reconsideration or two, I was pretty much done with the 700 MHz auction. Sure, Verizon filed a lawsuit with the DC Circuit, but at least we could sit back and stop worrying about the FCC stuff. And besides, the lawsuit didn't really have much of a chance anyway. So, after a grueling 6 months or so, I thought I could finally relax and turn to something new, like kicking the bejeezus out of the cable monopoly.

Hah.

As recent reports indicate, Verizon has apparently pressed the FCC to “clarify” the C Block conditions. I say “apparently” because Verizon has not actually filed a request for any sort of clarification, reconsideration, or declaratory ruling. Indeed, to my considerable annoyance, it took a modest reprimand from the Wireless Bureau and Martin's staff for Verizon to actually put something in the record vaguely resembling a description of what Verizon's most senior lobbyists actually discussed with the Chairman and his staff. Verizon, meanwhile, vigorously denies they ever asked for reconsideration (and, separately, that it finds the accusation that it violated the ex parte shocking and deeply offensive).

Hello World, I'm Josh King, Network Engineer at Acorn Active Media Foundation (http://www.acornactivemedia.com) and the Champaign-Urbana Wireless Internet Foundation (http://www.cuwin.net). Sascha asked me to contribute to this blog, so here goes with my first post.

I doubt it will be surprising to anyone used to dealing with big telecom companies, but Verizon is doing its level best to screw consumers when it comes to the 700 MHz spectrum auction. If you're following the auction, then you probably know that the process of deciding what to do with this precious section of radio spectrum is very contentious. Google, that organization I always hold a cautious liking for, has successfully introduced what they term an "open network" requirement into the terms of the auction. As Sascha detailed in an earlier post, this introduces an obligation to make sure that any devices utilizing this spectrum will be able to roam freely across networks without vendor lock-in. Of course Verizon can't be having with that, so on September 10th they filed suit against the FCC. From the request for judicial review:

"Verizon Wireless seeks judicial review on the grounds that the [700 MHz spectrum auction requirements] exceeds the Commission's authority under the Communications Act of 1934 [...] violates the United States Constitution, violates the Administrative Procedure Act [...] and is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence and otherwise contrary to law."

I am not a telecommunications lawyer, so I couldn't speak to whether the FCC's actions could be construed as a violation of the Communications Act of 1934. Legal basis or no, I think we can obviously see where Verizon's interests lie vis-a-vis the consumers (i.e. bilking them). I know I would better respect a company or individual doing something procedurally incorrect for morally right reasons than doing something legally justifiable for motivations of greed.

For those of you following the M2Z saga, the latest is that the FCC rejected M2Z's application and is releasing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to figure out what to do with the band. Here's an article from Network World that provides a good analysis:

From: http://www.networkworld.com

Is free nationwide wireless broadband dead?
Future of the 2155-2175MHz band up for debate

By Brad Reed, Network World, 09/11/07

Much to the dismay of some smaller Internet providers, the fate of the 2155-2175MHz band is still up in the air.

The band, which is unlicensed and unused, has been sought by companies, such as M2Z Networks and NetfreeUS, as a means to provide nationwide wireless broadband services. Each of the two companies had applied separately with the Federal Communications Commission for the rights to operate the band and use it to make a nationwide wireless network. However, the FCC announced Aug. 31 that it was dismissing both applications, and thus leaving the band’s future uncertain.

In a statement supporting the applications’ dismissal, commissioner Michael Copps said that “the proper way to allocate this spectrum in the manner that best serves the public interest is to conduct a general rulemaking.”

He described four different options that the commission should consider for dealing with the band, including opening it up for unlicensed use, designating it as an “open access model that would combine wholesale broadband access and a Carterfone mandate,” using it to create a free nationwide broadband network that would be supported both through advertising revenue and revenue generated from premium service fees and licensing it through an open auction.

In a separate statement, commissioner Jonathan Adelstein expressed frustration with what he said was a lack of progress by the commission in designating rules for the band’s use.

“I’m disappointed that despite the aggressive interest in and availability of this spectrum, the commission is only now expressing intent to seek comment on service rules for this band,” he said.

The companies that filed applications to operate the band haven’t given up, though. Shant Hovnanian, the CEO of Speedus Corp., the managing member of NetfreeUS, says that his company hoped to work with the FCC to shape their decision on the new rules.

“We are hopeful that there’s an expedited process now to establish rules where we could still be victorious in getting our format approved,” says Hovnanian, who wants to see the band used to create a free wireless network that will be funded by advertising. The idea is to make the Internet more like analog radio and television, where people can tune in for free in exchange for being exposed to advertisements.

M2Z CEO John Muleta says he would like to see the commission adopt rules similar to what M2Z had proposed in its application. M2Z’s original proposal would have given the company operating rights for the 2155-2175 MHz band in exchange for developing a nationwide wireless network that the company claimed would have provided free Internet service to 95% of Americans. The network would have operated at a speed of 384Kps, and would have also featured an obscenity filter administered by M2Z’s own National Broadband Radio Service.

Muleta says that while he’s happy to see the FCC undertaking rulemaking sessions for the band, their actions may be too little, too late.

“We’d have welcomed this if they’d started it 15 months ago,” he says. “A lot of the big carriers want to forestall competition, and the longer they make us wait to deliver our services, the better it is for the . . . Americans are dying for broadband, and it’s not that it’s not available, it’s just incredibly expensive. We’re offering a free service that’s being retailed today for $40 to $90 a month.”

Mike Jude, a senior analyst at Nemertes Research, says that his preferred solution for the band would be to open it up for unlicensed use, which he says could open the door for more innovation akin to the early days of citizens’ band radio, which he describes as “a free-for-all that ultimately led to a lot of interesting ideas.” However, he says the prospects for getting the current FCC to make the 2155-2175MHz band unlicensed are grim.

“The FCC has long history of wringing its hands in public, and often what they do is most politically expedient thing, which means going to go through the same traditional auction,” he says. “That seems to be the path of least resistance, and it has a lot of attraction for politicians.”

Sascha Meinrath, the research director for the New America Foundation's Wireless Future Program, says that any of the four options for the band laid out by Copps could be beneficial depending on the details. In particular, the ideas he finds most appealing are either making the 2155-2175 MHz band unlicensed or using it to provide a nationwide broadband service free of charge. However, he sees some potential concerns with some of the proposals laid out by M2Z and NetfreeUS. Obscenity filters such as the one proposed by M2Z, for instance, give him pause.

“You’re either providing Internet access -- and the good, the bad and the ugly that entails -- or you end up becoming a government censor, which has incredibly scary connotations,” he says. “Likewise, how advertising works on a free tier is vitally important. Ads should not be intrusive or end up degrading the user experience.”

Meinrath says that auctioning off the band could be beneficial if it correlates mainly with providers’ abilities to provide free service, and not simply their ability to pay. Among the criteria he’d like to see included in any potential auction are “free tier service speeds, buildout requirements and wholesale/open access.”

“Opening the band up for auction a la the 700 MHz block is probably the worst idea of the lot,” he says. “Let’s have an auction that actually generates benefits that people will directly experience.”

All contents copyright 1995-2007 Network World, Inc. http://www.networkworld.com

I've been mired in a pitched battle between the public interest (to allow the general public to use unlicensed devices on unused TV frequencies) and the National Association of Broadcasters and various massive corporations (who have launched a FUD campaign of epic proportions here in the nation's capital). Just today I learned that NAB and its allies have taken out full-page adds in various press going out to congressional offices claiming that these technologies will destroy TV as we know it. If this claim sounds familiar, it's because it was the same claim used to fight low power FM radio -- a claim that has since been proven to have been a lie.

Here's the latest:

Today the New America Foundation, Media Access Project and leading spectrum engineers filed Reply Comments at the FCC (Docket 04-186) with further evidence demonstrating the feasibility of "smart radio" technology that allows low-power broadband devices to detect and utilize vacant TV channels without causing harmful interference to TV viewers. The FCC is currently completing a rulemaking that could open unused TV band "white space" for unlicensed access.

Broadcasters and wireless microphone makers, which currently utilize less than half of the frequencies reserved exclusively for their industries, have tried to distort a recent FCC report that tested initial prototype devices submitted by Philips Electronics and Microsoft. Today's filing adds both new measurements and a critique of the broadcaster/microphone lobby claims.

"There is no longer any doubt about the feasibility of mobile, low-power devices to detect-and-avoid channels occupied by licensed TV channels or wireless microphone systems," said Michael Calabrese, director of New America's Wireless Future Program. "The remaining challenge for the FCC is to define explicit operating rules to govern device certification, so that America's high-tech industries can embark on the R&D necessary to bring compliant consumer devices to market."

The Reply Comments include the following major points:

* Measurements at the University of Kansas spectrum labs shows that both DTV channels and low-power broadband devices can operate in three consecutive channels with no harmful interference.

* Since the vast majority of wireless microphones are themselves unlicensed devices - and have been using vacant TV channels illegally, yet without complaints of interference - the FCC should offer them no further protection than NAF et al.'s proposal to allow sports, theater, concert and other venues to bar, or require patrons to turn off, mobile broadband devices during their events.

* Although the FCC labs found that White Space devices can operate as close as 2 meters from a DTV without causing interference, the Commission should follow the approach it has used for personal computers and other unlicensed emissions - and assume that at distances less than 10-to-20 meters, consumers can take self-help to remedy interference from a mobile device.

* The broadcast lobby (MSTV/NAB) submitted interference measurements, concerning the ability of devices to detect weak TV signals, that are clearly unreliable and erroneous.

* The Commission should reject the overly conservative detection threshold for weak TV signals proposed by the high-technology White Spaces Coalition (Microsoft, Philips, Dell, Google, et al.) since prohibiting the access to channels with signals from distant TV markets would protect few viewers, but deprive all Americans of broadband services.

Today's filing builds on NAF et al.'s initial Comments, filed August 15, on the FCC/OET Report.

New America's Wireless Future Program develops and advocates policy proposals aimed at achieving universal and affordable wireless broadband access, expanding public access to the airwaves and updating our nation's communications infrastructure in the digital era. For more information, visit www.spectrumpolicy.org.

Glenn Fleishman has an excellent analysis of the recent 700MHz auction rules for "open platforms". For those of us who've been fighting for opening up access to the public airwaves, these rules offer a teeny-tiny baby step in the right direction. Unfortunately, there are loopholes large enough to drive the Titanic through, and even this incredibly modest proposal only covers a tiny section of one of the block of what is going to be auctioned. Meanwhile, as the analog TV frequencies are switched to their digital TV frequencies, we have (quite literally) a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to open up the public airwaves that is being squandered at the altar of quick money (e.g., license auctions) while ignoring solutions that may maximize public utility.