I'm hosting an exciting event today over at the New America Foundation -- if you can't make it in person, you can watch the stream live online:

The Open Technology Initiative of the New America Foundation will host Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski on February 24, 2010 at 11am. Chairman Genachowski will preview working recommendations in the National Broadband Plan for advancing U.S. mobile broadband leadership.

Recognizing the importance of broadband for ensuring America’s economic development and leadership, Congress and the President tasked the FCC with developing a National Broadband Plan to connect all Americans to affordable, world-class, high-speed Internet. The FCC’s National Broadband Plan, which the agency will deliver to Congress on March 17, 2010, will create jobs and spur economic growth; unleash new waves of innovation and investment; and improve education, health care, energy efficiency, public safety, and the vibrancy of our democracy.

Chairman Genachowski will preview working recommendations for spectrum reforms incorporated into the National Broadband Plan. A distinguished panel of industry representatives and the public interest advocates will respond to these proposals.

This event will be webcast live, and questions will be taken via Twitter. Send your question or comment to @newamerica with the hashtag of #NAFevents.

Welcome
Steve Coll
President, New America Foundation

Keynote
Julius Genachowski
Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

Moderator
Sascha Meinrath
Director, Open Technology Initiative
New America Foundation

Panelists
Ben Scott
Policy Director, Free Press

Chris Guttman-McCabe
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs
CTIA-The Wireless Association

Julie Kearney
Vice President for Regulatory Affairs
Consumer Electronics Association

Matt Wood
Associate Director, Media Access Project

An interesting proposal from Senators Warner & Snowe. Reading between the lines, this is to solve the problem that technical expertise is too often sorely lacking across a number of different areas within the FCC (which has prioritized legal expertise over technological):

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Julia Wanzco (Snowe)
December 8, 2009 202.224.1304
Kevin Hall (Warner)
202.224.2425

Snowe, Warner Announce Bill to
Boost Technical Resources for FCC

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) today announced bipartisan legislation to bolster access to technical resources for the Commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The Snowe-Warner initiative will update current law to allow each Commissioner to hire an additional staff member—an electrical engineer or computer scientist—to provide in-depth technical consultation.

“Given the rapid advancement of technologies and innovation within the telecommunications industry, it is essential that Commissioners have in-house technical expertise to make well informed regulatory decisions,” said Senator Snowe, a senior member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which has jurisdiction over the legislation. “This legislation is a common-sense initiative that will guarantee each Commissioner has a technical expert on staff to provide detailed analysis on some of the most cutting-edge issues affecting the communications industry today.”

“Easing restrictions on the number of experts a commissioner can hire will provide the FCC with more tools and information it needs to decisions,” said Senator Warner. “This will give commissioners access to the best information possible, from all relevant disciplines, and in a timely manner – which is critical in making well-informed decisions.”

Under current law, each Commissioner is permitted to appoint only three professional assistants and a secretary. Historically, these professional assistants have been legal advisors covering the wireline, wireless, and cable/media sectors. The Snowe-Warner bill complements this structure by ensuring Commissioners have access to expertise involving the technical aspect of the issues, which is fundamental to developing sound regulatory policy related to the nation’s communications industry.

Cecilia Kang over at the Washington Post recently covered the Open Technology Initiative's proposal for a broadband nutrition label. You may already be familiar with the idea from the myriad credit card applications you probably receive each month which are mandated to contain a Shumer Box of key information about the credit card offer.

This sort of standardization makes comparisons across credit cards remarkably easy and helps ensure that we, as consumers, know what we're getting ourselves into. The same idea is what underlies the nutrition labels found on all prepackaged foods. My team's addition to the debate was to apply this idea to broadband services and propose what information should be contained within this informational disclosure.

Here's more from the Washington Post:

A nutrition box for Internet service?

Of all the data being collected for a federal probe into truth-in-billing rules for communications services, one statistic stands out:

Consumers are paying for broadband Internet service that lags advertised speeds by as much as 50 percent.

That stat was revealed by the Federal Communications Commission last month during a report on its plan to connect the entire nation to high-speed Internet. The news sent Twitterverse aflutter with outrage. Post Tech got tons of feedback on an entry about it. Consumer advocates said the revelation could open the door to class-action lawsuits against carriers for deceptive advertising.

And now those groups are offering one solution to help users from getting bamboozled. The groups, along with the New America Foundation, have proposed a Nutrition Fact box for broadband. Instead of calories, carbs and fiber, the broadband box would break down data on guaranteed delivered speeds, price, and length of contract. Such details are often blurred and buried in the fine print of multiple-page service agreements.







Truthful delivery of advertised speeds clearly hit and nerve with users who spend an average of $150 each month for their cell phone, cable or satellite television, home phone and Internet connections. And it was added frustration to notoriously shoddy service problems.

Communications service providers often rank low among industries in customer satisfaction surveys. Some online consumer activists have used the viral messaging on the Web to push companies like Comcast and Verizon to refocus their ways. Service at Comcast was so bad for Advertising Age blogger Bob Garfield that he started a Web site Comcastmustdie.com. That site has died and the push online hasn't led to meaningful change on billing practices of communications firms like Comcast, AT&T, Dish TV, Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile, consumer advocacy groups said.

"Consumers experience substantial confusion and frustration when choosing a service provider and plan, when using unexpectedly limited or low quality services, and when receiving higher-than expected bills," the groups wrote in final comments sent yesterday for the FCC review. "Substantial changes to the commission’s existing rules are necessary to remedy these problems."

Currently, carriers are generally left to voluntarily abide by some of the truth-in-billing standards, according to the groups that include Free Press, Consumers Union and Media Access Project.

The FCC's review looks at information available to consumers at all stages of the purchasing process of a communications service -- choosing a provider, choosing a service plan, managing use of the service plan, and deciding whether and when to switch an existing provider or plan.

Image credit: New America Foundation

A bit late -- but have been slammed. I speak again on September 9th on the consumer issues panel. Should be a really interesting time of things:

Prepared Testimony of Sascha Meinrath Before the FCC Wireless Technology Workshop

By Sascha Meinrath, New America Foundation
August 13, 2009

I work for a DC-based think tank - holding down the technology arm of the foundation's work.

The Open Technology Initiative formulates policy and regulatory reforms to support open architectures and open source innovations; and facilitate the development and implementation of open technologies and communications networks.

OTI promotes affordable, universal, and ubiquitous communications networks through partnerships with communities, researchers, industry, and public interest groups; and is committed to maximizing the potentials of innovative open technologies by studying their social and economic impacts - particularly for poor, rural, and other underserved constituencies.

***

Today we are living through a critical juncture in telecommunications history.

A trifecta of recent societal shifts are combining to create a "perfect storm" for advancing policies to better meet the needs of all U.S. residents.

• First, technological advances are creating a whole host of new platforms and hardware to better connect people, dramatically increasing the utility of communications tools.
• Second, consumers everywhere are clamoring for access to advanced services and new applications - driving multi-media production and information dissemination.
• Third, generational shifts amongst our country's key decision-makers are generating the potential for seismic changes in our country's regulatory environment.

Taken together, these factors should be driving a communications renaissanceakin to the introduction of the printing press, telephone, or the Internet itself.

Instead,what we are seeing is a systematic entrenchment of vested interests that are diligently:

1. working to prevent many of the most innovative technologies from ever seeing the light of day;
2. who are engaging in draconian attempts to limit media production and stifle information dissemination; and,
3. as Amy Schatz reported yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, launching unprecedented lobbying efforts to stagnate or prevent meaningful and much-needed reforms.

Here inside the Beltway, an epic battle is about to be waged between those seeking to create a participatory, distributed, and democratic digital public sphere and forces seeking to re-establish a command-and-control regime over next-generation telecommunications infrastructure.

As the populace shifts from wireline to mobile communications as theirconnectivity norm, wireless technologies are at the very heart of this battle.

Instead of building next-generation networks focused around lowering costs forconsumers and maximizing user control over the services and hardware we have bought, providers are architecting systems that maximize billable moments -commoditizing every new space and function possible.

Instead of fostering interconnectivity of networks and interoperability of devices, theforces of command-and-control seek new ways to capture market share and generate path dependencies to limit customer churn.

Handset exclusivity and the lockdown of cellular phones and PDAs are symptomatic of this business model; but so too are the myriad limitations we've already seen to prevent users from doing everything from streaming video, to Google Voice andSkype.

Historically,over the past 75 years, we have dramatically increased wireless capacity by opening up higher and higher frequencies as the technologies have made these bands viable. Allocations for new uses have paralleled these reforms.

However, assignments to license holders in years' past, being based upon the cutting edge technological capacities of their day, are remarkably in efficient by today's standards.

Today, cognitive and software defined radio technologies allows us to "in-fill"throughout the public airwaves - dynamically reusing empty or underutilized frequencies.

This opportunistic spectrum reuse - and its potential to dramatically decentralize and improve communications - is one of the most powerful tools available for breaking the current strangleholds we face over how we communicate.

Today's technological capabilities have far outstripped many current business practices- straining infrastructure that was built for the wrong purpose.

Tomorrow, this disruptive potential is certain to grow and - so long as current systems remain locked down and service provision fails to meet consumer needs - may achieve explosive proportions.

The question we must all face and answer, is "How do we transition to a moredistributed, participatory, democratic telecommunications system?"

After years of burying our head in the sand, a continuing failure to forthrightly address systematic shortcoming in our wireless communications infrastructure will dramatically increase the headaches (and economic costs) that we will eventually have to face.

Leadership from Congress, from private industry, and from the public interest sector is desperately needed to ensure that these necessary transitions are graceful instead of unmanageable and liberatory instead of harmful.

But most importantly, the onus lies with the FCC to ensure that the future of wireless communications lives up to its democratic potential.

The FCC, through incentives and regulatory fiat has the responsibility to ensure that the public airwaves serve, first and foremost, the best interest of the residents of the United States and leverage the capabilities of open hardwareand software; cognitive radio technologies; and peer-to-peer, distributed infrastructures.

I look forward to hearing how each of my co-panelists sees their company's rolein supporting this mandate and look forward to your questions.

About a half-decade ago I wrote up a piece for the Journal of Community Informatics, "Community Wireless Networking and Open Spectrum Usage: A Research Agenda to Support Progressive Policy Reform of the Public Airwaves". My focus was on spectrum policy, but the first key point I raised was valuable across the board -- to create a truly progressive telecommunications policy:

"First, identify major research that has already been conducted and impacted (or been cited) in regulatory/policy debates, as well as the independent research labs that are most active in contemporary spectrum research areas. This assessment would survey the literature that "counts" -- encompassing technical, economic, social, and other domains that should be taken into account and help inform contemporary regulatory/policy debates. This literature could then be used to help set the agenda for future policy debates."

Now fast forward to today's press release from the FCC (and which happens to be put out by my friend and colleague, Jen Howard, who just started her new gig at the FCC last week):

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 14, 2009

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT
Jen Howard
(202) 418-0506
Jen.howard@fcc.gov

Harvard’s Berkman Center to Conduct Independent Review of Broadband Studies to Assist FCC

WASHINGTON – The Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University will conduct an independent expert review of existing literature and studies about broadband deployment and usage throughout the world. This project will help inform the FCC’s efforts in developing the National Broadband Plan.

“Advanced communications have the potential to enhance the lives of all Americans, improve public safety, create jobs, and support our economic recovery,” Chairman Julius Genachowski said. “As the Commission embarks on the important task of crafting a National Broadband Plan, better data will inform and animate the activities of the agency. The Berkman Center’s independent review of existing information will help lay the foundation for enlightened, data-driven decisionmaking. I appreciate the Berkman Center’s invaluable assistance and look forward to seeing the results.”

Yochai Benkler, the Berkman Professor of Entrepreneurial Legal Studies at Harvard, and faculty co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, said, “I am pleased that the Berkman Center can contribute positively to the process Chairman Genachowski has envisioned for developing a national broadband strategy by providing to the Commission, and thereby the public, the results of our compilation and assessment of the existing literature on this important and timely subject.”

“A comprehensive assessment of these plans will be enormously helpful given our short timetable,” said Blair Levin, who is coordinating the FCC’s National Broadband Plan. “We don’t want to reinvent the wheel. Knowing what has already been learned will improve our ability to deliver the best possible National Broadband Plan.” Consistent with Chairman Genachowski’s recent public statements regarding an open and transparent National Broadband Plan process, the results of the Berkman Center review will be made publicly available.

Awesome!

The leaking [White House] has begun officially "announcing" that Mignon Clyburn (daughter of powerful South Carolina Congressman and House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn) as FCC Commissioner. This has been long expected and rumors have been percolating for several months among those in the know, but this appears to be the first time that Mignon Clyburn has been confirmed in the mainstream press.

So it's a good day to talk more openly about what this means for the general public interest. Let me start by saying that I'm keeping an open mind, having never worked with Ms. Clyburn nor had any personal dealings with her. That said, behind closed doors, just about everyone I've talked with -- right across the board -- has been deeply concerned that Ms. Clyburn will be a disaster for the public interest.

The dominant feeling is that she is extremely tight with the telecom incumbents and that having her on the FCC will all but ensure a stalemate that will prevent any meaningful telecom reforms from being passed. To me, this seems strange since so many of us on the Technology, Media, & Telecom advisory committee during the campaign were looking forward to much needed and innovative reforms once the new FCC was in place.

If this is true, President Obama would have really sold the public interest down the river. Either way, even objectively this looks like a traditional "inside baseball" quid-pro-quo -- appointing the daughter of a powerful congressman to score political points just doesn't look good. And there's the issue that the cable and broadcasting industry are very excited for this nominee -- so much so that it has a lot of folks worried about how independent Ms. Clyburn will be vis-a-vis these incumbents' interests.

What I had heard is that her first choices of jobs were all involving the DoE; but having failed to secure a position at the Department of Energy, the FCC Commissionership was the "booby prize." Given how little is actually known about Ms. Clyburn's positions on key telecommunications issues and her lack of experience in this area, one cannot help but wonder why she's been chosen for such a critically important post.

With nothing less than the future of telecommunications riding on the choices this nominee would be making, it leaves me deeply concerned about the future of the FCC and it's efficacy in addressing a host of problems that have continued to worsen due to it's lax oversight and its abdication of responsibility to adequately regulate to maximize the public interest.

I'd certainly like to learn more about what her positions on the actual issues are -- it would greatly relieve my trepidation. Currently, I see the incumbents rejoicing and veteran public interest folks being worried and that's never a good sign.

I'll continue my searches for information on her actual stances on the issues (good, bad, and ugly).

[UPDATE01] I've begun collecting reactions from folks in the know -- here's what they've been saying (they're not "on the record" and thus I'm keeping them anonymous):

"...her father is the Whip and he went through hell just to get to Congress after losing a few state campaigns, she won't do anything that will rock the boat for her father nor his chances of running for Gov. of SC someday." [Given the power of AT&T and the telcos in South Carolina (many of whom are major contributors to Jim Clyburn's congressional campaigns) this would imply that she would be very unlikely to vote against their interests.

"Arrgghhh" [My personal favorite. In particular, it sums up the fear that one CLEC in South Carolina has about Ms. Clyburn and it's implications for competitors to the telco incumbents.]

I'm hopeful that over the course of the next 24 hours we'll start seeing more information on her public statements and votes on issues intersecting with telecom policy. Stay tuned.

Government Technology recently published my latest article on the FCC's plans for a national public safety network. Here's the text:

Emergency communications save lives.

The unfortunate corollary to this maxim: Communication failures kill. More attention is being focused on how to improve communication, not only within an emergency response organization, but also among first responders from different agencies. To remain fully connected, key communications officers have often adopted a "Bat Belt" approach with several communications devices - sometimes a half dozen or more - strapped to their waist. It's a necessity for communicating among the many federal, state and local agencies' wireless networks during an incident.

Today's IT is increasingly sophisticated, and emergency response agencies and hardware platforms are proliferating, which makes interoperable communications ever more urgent. Natural or man-made disasters require close interaction of many organizations, but the sad reality is that too many communications systems aren't interoperable; this can lead to on-the-ground snafus, inefficiency and tragedies - as was exemplified in the disaster response after Hurricane Katrina. Within these contexts, the FCC is working to open new radio frequencies to meet first responders' interoperability needs.

Read more...

Continue reading »

My good friend, Marvin Ammori, is hosting the University of Nebraska Space & Telecom Law Program's Telecom and Space Conference in DC tomorrow. It's an all-star lineup and certain to contain a good amount of interesting debate. I'll be there for an afternoon panel and look forward to the day's discussions.

“Looking Back at the Past Eight Years, Looking Toward the Next Four”

November 13, 2008
Washington Court Hotel
525 New Jersey Avenue
Washington, D.C.

8:45 a.m. Welcome (Matt Schaefer, Director, UNL Space & Telecom Law Program)

8:50 a.m. Opening Remarks FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein

9:00 a.m. Morning Keynote Discussion
* Richard Wiley, Partner, Wiley Rein, former Chairman, FCC
* Ben Scott, Policy Director, Free Press
* Cecilia Kang, Washington Post (moderator)

10:00-11:00 a.m. Wireless Issues
* Fred Campbell, President, Wireless Communications Association & former Wireless Bureau Chief, FCC
* William Webb, Head, Ofcom Research & Development (U.K.)
* Terri Natoli, Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs, Clearwire
* Robert Pepper, Cisco (invited)

11:20 a.m. - 12:20 p.m. Network Neutrality
* Marvin Ammori, Professor of Law, U. of Nebraska College of Law & former General Counsel, Free Press (moderator)
* Frannie Wellings, Telecom Counsel, US Sen. Byron Dorgan
* Rebecca Arbogast, Principal, Stifel Nicolaus,
* Markham Erickson, Executive Director, Open Internet Coalition
* James Cicconi, Senior Executive Vice President-External and Legislative Affairs, AT&T

12:30 p.m. Lunch

2:00-3:00 p.m. International Issues
* Tricia Paoletta, Harris, Wiltshire, & Grannis
* Ambassador Richard Russell, US Ambassador to ITU WRC-07
* Helen Domenici, International Bureau Chief, FCC
* Jonathan McHale, USTR

3:20-4:20 p.m. Broadband Policy/Universal Access
* Sascha Meinrath, Research Director, Wireless Future Program at the New America Foundation (moderator)
* Derek Turner, Research Director, Free Press
* Christopher Libertelli, Director of Government and Regulatory Affairs, Skype
* Link Hoewing, Vice President – Public Policy Development and Corporate Responsibility, Verizon
* Scott Reiter, Director of Industry Affairs, National Telecommunications Cooperative Association—The Voice of Rural Telecommunications

Yesterday's FCC decision to open up unused TV channels to unlicensed wireless devices has generated a frenzy of activity among tech-savvy reporters. Wired interviewed me for their article today -- which hits the nail on the head, but doesn't yet focus attention on the fundamental technological shift that opportunistic spectrum access makes possible. I was hoping that Wired would be a good venue for a big picture visioning of a future where these technologies are normative -- here's what we ended up with...

[Originally posted at: http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/11/fccs-decision-t.html]

The Federal Communications Commission's decision to open up the 'white spaces' spectrum to unlicensed devices could usher in a new telecom revolution, say analysts.

Like Wi-Fi, the availability of free, unregulated spectrum could create new technologies and new markets, bringing superfast wireless connectivity to the masses. Unlike Wi-Fi, it could also put pressure on wireless carriers.

"All the PR spin and FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) failed in the face of physics and the ground reality of engineering," says Sascha Meinrath, research director of the wireless future program at the New America Foundation, a non-partisan public policy think-tank.

"Opening up white spaces will lower the cost of communications by facilitating new technology, software and devices is an enormous win for public interest," he says.

AT A GLANCE:
White Spaces Winners

Intel: The company's chips could power many of the new devices on the white spaces spectrum.

Google: New services from Google could be offered on the new spectrum. Google could even end up becoming a broadband service provider, perhaps as part of a consortium.

Motorola/Philips/Dell: They are likely to create the hardware and the devices to access the broadband services on white spaces.

Consumers: More innovative products, more wireless choices, and higher wireless data speeds. Also, the use of white spaces could finally usher in the era of seamless roaming across technologies.

White Spaces Losers

Verizon/AT&T/Comcast: These companies have paid billions over the years to gain exclusive rights to the spectrum. Now they will have to fight new entrants who have no legacy costs to worry about.

Professional Audio Equipment Manufacturers: These companies, which have so far operated in the white spaces, will have to spend more to create equipment that will work in different areas of the spectrum. They will also have to spend more on testing their devices to avoid interference.

'White spaces' refers to the unused bits of spectrum between UHF television channels, which will no longer be needed when the U.S. abandons analog television broadcasting and goes all-digital in February, 2009.

But just how to use that spectrum was a hotly-contested battle that pitted technology companies against broadcasters and wireless audio equipment manufacturers.

Wireless microphones and other equipment used by broadcasters and event producers already use some of this spectrum, so those groups resisted the idea of letting unlicensed devices onto their airwaves, willy-nilly.

The FCC's latest decision means technology companies such as Google, Intel Motorola, Phillips and Dell -- which lobbied to "free the spectrum" so they could build data services on it -- will emerge as big winners.

Telecom carriers such as Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and Comcast will feel the pain and be forced to adapt to a new reality, say analysts.

Verizon and AT&T have paid billions over the last few years for exclusive of chunks of spectrum. Also, Sprint and Clearwire are creating a Wi-Max network that could also be threatened by white spaces-based broadband.

White space frequencies are unlicensed, which means any company can use the spectrum. By contrast, wireless carriers have exclusive, licensed access to the frequencies that their phones use.

"White spaces could be a friend or foe of existing carriers," says Paul Gallant, an analyst with research firm wealth management firm The Stanford Group. "It might end up enabling carriers to enhance their retail offerings or it could be used in completely new ways to undercut the existing business models."

Sprint declined to comment.

White spaces have been coveted by technology companies for their potential. The spectrum will allow wireless signals to travel 2-3 times farther than Wi-Fi signals can today, including through obstacles.

Allowing for unlicensed use of white spaces means consumers will see a new generation of wireless broadband devices, said Craig Mundie, chief strategy officer for Microsoft, in a letter to members of the House of Representatives a few days ago.

It will enable low wireless broadband service in rural areas, self-forming mesh networks capable of routing traffic at speeds of 20 megabits per second and above within the mesh; and wireless distribution of content throughout the home and among devices, said Mundie.

That's exactly what consumers need today, agrees Meinrath. "All those problems of diversity on the airwaves and access to internet broadband connectivity are predicated on the artificial scarcity of airwaves," he says. "They will be alleviated."

The future of communications is in seamless roaming across not just networks but also technologies such as wireline broadband, Wi-Fi and cellular networks.

"The devices of the future will allow you to completely un-tether yourself," says Meinrath.

Already Google has applied for a patent that would allow the company to create such a device.

Chip companies such as Intel are also likely to profit from opening up of white spaces. Intel could potentially develop chips that can ride over white spaces, much like the Wi-Fi and WiMax-enabled chips it produces today.

The move could also mean that companies such as Motorola, Phillips and Dell could create new mobile devices that could become alternatives to smartphones or companions to notebooks.

For telecom service providers, it will be the beginning of a new world. Broadband connectivity over white spaces could change the telecom landscape much like Wi-Fi did a few years ago.

Existing service providers will have to evolve fast or find themselves sinking as newer players, probably a consortium led by Google, enter the market.

"The key question is, who is going to pick up the ball and run with it?" says Gallant.

Meanwhile Cablevision is building out a mobile broadband service in New York using unlicensed spectrum that's not white space, says Gallant. If Cablevision's experiment succeeds Comcast, Verizon and other service providers could end up embracing white spaces.

As for Verizon's $4.7 billion winning bid earlier this year for the 700
MHZ spectrum, it won't be an investment they are likely to regret.

"Verizon knew exactly what they were getting with that spectrum," says Gallant. "White spaces is just the opposite. It is very risky and may be hard to create a business model that will be truly successful on it."

Yesterday will go down in history as a bellwether moment. Few among us will soon forget the excitement of Obama's election. But there was an equally historic vote yesterday that for geeks, policy analysts, and technologists represents an entirely new trajectory in telecommunications. In essence, the FCC has begun the transition from command-and-control, single-user spectrum licensure to a more distributed system that holds the potential to eliminate the artificial scarcity that prevented widespread access to the public airwaves since 1927.

Yesterday, the FCC ruled that unlicensed white space devices would be allowed to operate on unused television channels -- allowing an entirely new generation of technological innovation to begin. While the official order has not been release, here's the information that's been gleaned thus far (please note that this is tentative information and until the official Report and Order is issued by the FCC, while unlikely, is subject to change):

• Both fixed and personal portable devices will be allowed. So look for base stations on cell towers as well as next generation PDAs and multi-media devices.
• Personal portable devices will be allowed to operate at power levels up to 40mW.
• On non-adjacent channels (i.e., where you have three unoccupied TV channels in a row, this would be the middle channel), higher power levels will be allowed (up to 100mW -- though I've also heard that up to 4-5W may be possible).
• Unlicensed wireless microphones will not receive priority status except, potentially, on channels 2-4. On all other channels (through to channel 51), all devices will share secondary status to primary broadcasters (e.g., television stations and licensed microphones).
• A geolocational database will back up spectrum sensing capabilities to ensure WSDs do not operate in restricted areas. Left unclear is whether licensed wireless microphone users will be allowed to exempt their venue from WSD use and whether this would also allow for unlicensed wireless microphone users to do likewise.
• A Notice of Inquiry will be launched by the FCC to investigate higher-powered use as an additional service in areas with few digital TV stations. This would facilitate backhaul capabilities for WISPs and other service providers.

I first started working on this proceeding back in 2004. After years of work, and an ever-increasing amount of time and energy spent on this battle, I can honestly say that I'm amazed by how successful this work has proven. At the same time, much like the presidential election, this win provides only the opportunity for amazing new innovations and services and much work remains. We need to work with performing arts groups to ensure that they have access to the technologies they need to carry out their work. And we need to work with wireless ISPs and allied organizations to ensure that they have the resources they need to continue spreading connectivity to underserved communities across the country. Finally, though the foundation has been set, the most important battle is yet to come -- opening up all underutilized bands for opportunistic spectrum reuse.

I expect a multi-pronged approach to what lies ahead. I've already begun talks with WISP allies to follow up on the FCC's announced NOI. Likewise, I'm hopeful that folks I've been talking with for months within the performing arts community will see the FCC's decision as a good reason to collaborate on future joint efforts. In the interim, I am working with my colleague, Victor Pickard, on opening up debate on opportunistic spectrum reuse -- starting with government spectrum. Our revamped working paper should be out in the near future, laying out a policy agenda for what needs to be done at the down of the age of opportunistic spectrum reuse.

Here's the FCC's press release as well as Commissionerss statements:

11/4/08

FCC Adopts Rules For Unlicensed Use of Television White Spaces.
News Release: Word | Acrobat
Martin Statement: Word | Acrobat
Copps Statement: Word | Acrobat
Adelstein Statement: Word | Acrobat
Tate Statement: Word | Acrobat
McDowell Statement: Word | Acrobat