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."

Last month, Comcast announced it was taking over control of Insight's networks in much of the Midwest. Last week, without any warning to its customers, Comcast cut off service as a part of a "network upgrade." For the past decade, the Chambana.net community webhosting project has provided low-cost services to our local community. For the past several years, we've utilized (and paid the premium for) enterprise class connectivity.

Since we're in the midst of upgrading and adding redundant backup uplinks, we were quite reliant upon Comcast. We've had to pay a huge mark-up for services that are supposedly better than the norm -- but Comcast completely disregarded the service level agreements that Insight had and, but cutting off service, caused the outage of service to scores of websites, hundreds of e-mail lists, and thousands of users.

The silver lining in all of this is that after two days of zero response from Comcast, Pete Collins was able to put us in contact with a Comcast employee (Jim) from the Chicago offices and Jim was able to get things cleared up fairly quickly. The total outage time was several days, and without Jim's help, would have been far longer.

But the real problem is that this sort of massive disruption to service was both completely unnecessary, entirely avoidable, and done in an environment where Comcast faces no negative repercussions for causing substantial harm to the communities that rely upon Internet connectivity for their livelihoods. This sort of business practice must be disallowed by the Public Utility Commissions and other bodies that are supposed to protect the general public from this sort of corporate malfeasance. Otherwise, it's only a question of time before it happens again.

You can tune into a live broadcast of The Future of Municipal Wireless streaming live from the New America Foundation here in Washington, DC. We will also be using a live web chat for remote viewers so that you will be able to ask questions and comment on the proceedings.

Discussion will focus on alternative municipal wireless business models that have proven successful (both in the US and overseas) in delivering affordable (often free) broadband to their local communities. There's a lot to be learned from the panel of experts -- participants include:

The Honorable Mike Doyle (D-PA)
Vice Chairman, Subcommitee on Telecommunications, House Commerce Committee
U.S. House of Representatives

Joshua Breitbart
Principal and Co-Founder
Ethos Wireless

Jonathan Baltuch
President
MRI

Aaron Kaplan
Director
FunkFeuer (Austria)

Jon Peha
Associate Director of the Center for Wireless and Broadband Networking
Carnegie-Mellon University

Richard MacKinnon
Founder and President
Austin Wireless City Project

Sascha D. Meinrath
Research Director, Wireless Future Program
New America Foundation

Computer World is reporting that Philadelphia's CIO, Terry Phillis "believes there is a 75% chance that EarthLink Inc. will sell or abandon its ambitious citywide Wi-Fi network operation in a year." National Public Radio is claiming, "Philadelphia's wireless Internet network was supposed to be a model for the nation, but the project has been plagued by delays and spotty service." Predating this recent surge of media critique, New America Foundation released an in-depth analysis of the pros and cons of the Philadelphia Wireless Initiative. While some folks were scornful of the report, more and more folks are realizing that something's fishy in Philly (and it ain't the oysters).

"EU Court: Downloaders Can Stay Private" state the Associated Press; "EU court says file sharers don't have to be named" says Reuters; "EU top court protects downloaders' privacy" writes Xinhau; "File-sharers 'need not be named'" is the BBC headline. From London to Beijing, the media are reporting on the recent high court ruling in the European Union -- in civil suits, Internet Service Providers don't need to turn over information on file-sharing customers, regardless of whether they may be sharing copyrighted materials. Meanwhile, in the United States, AT&T (among others) is considering adding deep packet inspection to its core routers in order to filter copyrighted content (whether legal or illegally used).

The EU and the US are launching on two entirely different trajectories -- one that balances copyright holders' rights with the privacy and fair use rights of the general public (the EU) and one where copyright owners are systematically stripping the general public of its fair use and privacy rights (the US). In addition, US policies will lead to a data obfuscation arms race -- making it increasingly difficult to engage in legitimate law enforcement.

At some point, I suspect that policy-makers will need to step in to reign in the RIAA, MPAA, and their allies and re-establish a balance between the rights of copyright holders and and general public. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, is focused on balancing of rights, authorizing Congress to: "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" while, at the same time, "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Alas, the US has become increasingly blinkered -- focusing more and more on the latter and ignoring the responsibility to promote science and art as well.

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.

Here in DC we've been busy getting a new paper out the door. Focusing on the legal and regulatory precedents for allowing foreign attachments on wireline networks (e.g., answering machines, computer modems, etc.) -- this analysis supports the notion that wireline and wireless phone systems should both be open. Currently, cell phone companies engage in all sorts of behaviors to limit what devices can be used on their networks.

We just hosted the Free My Phone event earlier this week in the Russell Senate Building -- alas, while the video looks great, the audio channel didn't work (so unless you're a fantastic lip reader, it's not of much use). Which is a shame since the event brought together some fairly interesting folks:

• Commissioner Michael Copps
  Federal Communications Commission

• Walt Mossberg
  Personal Technology Columnist, Wall Street Journal

• Stephen Wildstrom
  Personal Technology Columnist, Business Week

• Tony Lewis
  Vice President - Open Development Initiative, Verizon Wireless

• Blair Levin
  Managing Director, Stifel Nicolaus

• Christopher Libertelli
  Senior Director - Regulatory and Government Affairs, Skype

• Robert Frieden
  University of Pennsylvania Law School

• Michael Calabrese
  Director, Wireless Future Program, New America Foundation

And managed to garner some good press in places like Consumer Affairs, CNet News, and PC World.

Meanwhile, here's the official press release that we sent out today.

Dear Colleagues,

This week, the New America Foundation/Wireless Future Program released a new working paper, Wireless Carterfone: A Long Overdue Policy Promoting Consumer Choice and Competition, by Rob Frieden of Penn State University.

Currently, wireless carriers can restrict the phones and other devices consumers can use on their network, what device features they can access, and what software applications and content they can download. Carriers lock subscribers into two-year service contracts, often bundling the service with carrier-subsidized handsets that include restrictive terms of service designed to limit access to web-based aps and content that compete with the carriers or their affiliates. This "locking and blocking" has been prohibited in relation to traditional wireline telephone service since the 1968 Carterfone decision by the FCC gave consumers the right to purchase their choice of equipment and to connect any telephone or safe device without carrier-imposed limitations.

The paper demonstrates that the FCC has ample statutory authority to apply Carterfone consumer choice regulation to wireless carriers -- and that the FCC has already extended Carterfone principles to other technologies and services. The Commission has undertaken several initiatives to protect consumers from similar mandatory bundling arrangements, including its 2005 order mandating alternatives to cable set-top box leasing. Similar unbundling arrangements have been applied to the wireless market, including requiring wireless carriers to provide consumers with local number portability and the establishment of an “Open Platform” requirement for a 22 MHz block of spectrum in the 700 MHz spectrum auction that begins this week. These examples underscore the importance of Carterfone as a universal precedent for promoting consumer choice and protecting the public interest.

The working paper can be found "here. More information on this issue is available free at www.spectrumpolicy.org. Also, please call Erin Drankoski at 202-997-8727 or email Drankoski@newamerica.net for more information about New America’s experts on this issue.

---

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.

About the New America Foundation:

The New America Foundation is a nonprofit, post-partisan public policy institute whose purpose is to bring exceptionally promising new voices and new ideas to the fore of our nation's public discourse. Relying on a venture capital approach, the Foundation invests in outstanding individuals and policy solutions that transcend the conventional political spectrum. Headquartered in our nation's capital, New America also has offices in California and New York. More information is available at www.newamerica.net.

"Smart" wireless devices can use the unassigned frequencies between broadcast TV channels to offer wireless broadband and other innovative services. A rulemaking is pending at the FCC (docket 04-186) to permit unlicensed access to this currently wasted spectrum, subject to technical requirements that will protect television reception from interference. 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 prevent harmful interference to DTV reception and other incumbent services.

This policy backgrounder offers a summary analysis, and 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. It provides policymakers with:

1. a brief historical background to the current FCC proceedings;
2. a description of White Space Device (WSD) technologies;
3. a “Myths vs. Facts” section addressing 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.

For the full document, please click here.

According to the Q3 2007 report by Point Topic on broadband download speeds, most of the rest of the world is seeing increases in their download speeds. The United States, continuing in its stagnant trajectory, has broken off from much of the rest of the most industrialized nations and is now lumped in with the Middle East and Africa.

If one picture is worth a thousand words, this one tells it all: