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.

The recent 700MHz auction results have been released -- and the winners are... exactly who we thought they would be: big telco incumbents. While this result may not be ideal, the open platform mandate for the C Block (which raised over $5 billion of the $19.6 billion in proceeds) will require Verizon to allow all compatible devices onto their network (which should dramatically increase the options for consumers who would like to bring their own devices to their service provider). Of course, there's still a lot to the rules that will need to be interpreted by the FCC -- the actual mandate was developed as a compromise among various FCC staffers and contains language that was purposefully nebulous. Meanwhile, here's an article from PC World that sums up some of the issues at play in this recent auction:

From PCworld.com:

700-MHz Auction Draws Mixed Reaction

Although disappointed that large incumbent carriers won the biggest prizes in the 700-MHz auction this week, some open-network advocates still say the auction could be a good first step.

Brad Reed, Network World

Friday, March 21, 2008 05:00 PM PDT

Some open-network advocates say the federal government's 700-MHz auction could be a good first step toward giving American consumers access to a truly open wireless network.

Sascha Meinrath, the research director for the New America Foundation's Wireless Future Program, says the 700-MHz auction went "exactly as expected," with big carriers Verizon and AT&T scoring big wins on the so-called "C" and "B" blocks of spectrum, respectively. Now that the spectrum has been allotted to the victors, he says, the future of open mobile broadband networks in the United States now hinges upon how vigorously the FCC enforces the open-access regulations it placed on the C Block, the 22-MHz chunk of spectrum that Verizon bid more than US$4.5 billion for the rights to operate.

The C Block is a particularly valuable piece of spectrum because it provides the broadest range of coverage over any spectrum available in the auction, and could potentially hold the key to building out a nationwide open-access wireless network. The FCC placed open-access rules on the block last year that will prohibit Verizon from blocking or slowing Internet traffic from competing carriers using the network, or from discriminating against devices trying to connect to the network. The commission adopted the rules in response to heavy lobbying from Google and consumer-advocacy groups.

Meinrath says while the open-access rules have the right intent behind them, they are broadly written and can be open to different interpretations. Thus the future composition of the FCC, and whether its members are strongly committed to the principle of open networks, will determine just how open the C-Block spectrum really is.
Verizon

Tim Karr, the campaign director for media advocacy group Free Press, says Verizon's past opposition to open networks means that the carrier should [that should probably be "shouldn't" --sdm] be trusted and that consumer groups will have to pressure the FCC to strictly enforce its own rules.

"I don't see Verizon doing anything in the wireless space to threaten their status quo of control over the broadband marketplace," he says. "We need to remain vigilant to ensure that Verizon honors the FCC conditions in a way that brings real consumer choice into a still-closed marketplace."

Karr also says the FCC should expand openness conditions to all wireless networks used by consumers, and not only the C Block. He thinks that unless the FCC is active in prodding Verizon and other carriers toward more openness, then Verizon's victory in the auction will leave "slim prospects for genuine Internet competition via a wireless 'third pipe.'"

Google, which did not win any actual spectrum in the auction, has so far expressed more optimism over the auction results than some of the consumer advocacy groups. In a post on Google's public policy blog, Google attorneys Richard Whitt and Joseph Farber called the auction "a major victory for consumers" and predicted that "consumers soon should begin enjoying new, Internet-like freedom to get the most out of their mobile phones and other wireless devices." Google also said that it couldn't comment in further detail on the auction results because it might violate the FCC's anti-collusion rules for the auction, but promised that it would have "more to say in the near future."

I'm spending the weekend up in Philadelphia as a part of the SSRC Necessary Knowledge Workshop, which brings together dozens of academics and policy wonks from across the country (and around the globe). The workshop is a chance to hear about various research projects that have been conducted over the past few years. For me, it's a chance to identify academics who are investigating issues that are being discussed and decided upon by decision-makers and regulators inside the beltway. Hopefully, I'll be leaving with a rolodex full of new contacts and a briefcase full of papers.

Proceedings are just about to start...

We just launched the Wireless Innovation Alliance here at year's end to help counter the massive, multi-million dollar lobbying and PR blitz by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB). At stake is access to the unused frequencies in-between TV broadcast channels. The NAB says that allowing unlicensed devices in these channels would destroy TV (and they have zillions of dollars and lobbyists on their side). We say that's bunk (and have research/physics/reality) on our side.

I recently drafted an in-depth white space device policy backgrounder on the issue that's both accessible and chock-full of useful information about white space devices.

Meanwhile, a number of congressional members weighed in this week supporting white space devices, and Ofcom (the British equivalent of the Federal Communications Commission) just announced their support for white space devices -- what they call "interleaved spectrum" (maybe physics works differently across the pond?).

If you're now asking yourself, "What are these white space devices of which you speak?" -- here's a quick synopsis of the current battle (from the white space device policy backgrounder):

White spaces devices use the unassigned frequencies between broadcast TV channels to offer a range of wireless services to the public. Access to the vacant TV channels in each market has been the subject of intense lobbying, yet far too many of the arguments against white space devices rely upon misinformation about the technologies and the FCC process that will ensure that harmful interference TV broadcasts and other incumbent services does not occur. Much of the analysis that underlies anti-white space device lobbying does not equip policymakers with the information they need to make decisions in the public interest. We believe that policymakers deserve better than the torrent of misinformation that has characterized the debate over white spaces devices. Therefore, this paper is an effort to help policymakers strike the appropriate balance between protecting existing services from interference while making the benefits of mobile broadband services available and affordable for all consumers. This policy backgrounder contains an analysis of the impact of white spaces devices from the New America Foundation, an independent think tank that has published numerous independent studies on this issue over the past five years. The paper contains links to primary sourcing to support its claims and aid in the critical analysis of the counterclaims currently being made about these new technologies. Our goal is to provide decision-makers and interested parties with: 1) a brief historical background to the current FCC proceedings; 2) a description of White Space Device (WSD) technologies; 3) a point-counterpoint “Myths vs. Facts” section on some of the key concerns raised about WSDs; 4) an overview of the public benefits of WSDs; and 5) a concise summary of where we are in the multi-phase process of adopting WSD technologies for consumer use.

Presented at the 2007 Community Wireless Infrastructure Research Project (CWIRP) Workshop in Toronto, Canada on October 16, 2007, "US Telecommunications: Policy and Fantasy in the 21st Century" takes analyses the implications of four initiatives affecting 21st century telecommunications:

1. Broadband Census of America Act of 2007
2. Community Broadband Act
3. Open Platform requirements of the 700MHz spectrum auction
4. White Space Devices

Thanks to Peter Kese, who took my presentation and merged it with video on his nifty platform over at videolectures.net. My presentation, Wireless Tech & Regulatory Reality: Policy & Fantasy in the 21st Century provides a background analysis of community wireless technologies and an overview of the political battle over White Space Devices in the United States. This was presented in Maribor, Slovenia on October 26, 2007 at the Kiblix Conference.

Wireless Tech & Regulatory Reality: Policy & Fantasy in the 21st Century provides a background analysis of community wireless technologies and an overview of the political battle over White Space Devices in the United States. This was presented in Maribor, Slovenia on October 26, 2007 at the Kiblix Conference (an intriguing blend of art and Linux -- Maja Vuksanović did a great job coordinating my time there).

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.

Just when we'd hoped that the US administration might finally begin working on a national broadband strategy, it comes out against one of the key components that more successful countries have implemented. Preston Gralla hits the nail on the head -- from www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/6153:

U.S. Justice Dept. should stay out of net neutrality debate
By Preston Gralla on Fri, 09/07/2007 - 2:04pm

It's clear that the U.S. Department of Justice is far more interested in politics than it is in enforcing the law. What else to make of its recent bizarre criticism of network neutrality proposals?

In a press release, the department said that it had cautioned the FCC against any network neutrality proposals because, the proposals could "deter broadband Internet providers from upgrading and expanding their networks to reach more Americans."

First off, that's flatly wrong. The U.S. has among the worst broadband penetration rates and speeds in the developed world, because the government refuses to take actions to ensure we have adequate broadband coverage.

Secondly, net neutrality would increase competition, not harm it, and there would be better broadband services overall.

That's not the real point, though. The point is that the Department of Justice is supposed to enforce laws, not push specific political positions. Under Attorny General Alberto Gonzales, the department was all about politics, not law enforcement. But he's resigned, and so many people assumed the department would go back to its roots of enforcing laws.

It's clear, though, that the problem is deeper than Gonzales, as this latest statement proves. Whether you are for or against network neutrality, you should hope that our Department of Justice would stay away from politics. For the moment, though, it's as knee-deep in partisanship as ever.