|
As I write this, the FCC is in the final stages of deciding if and how to authorize use of the TV broadcast "white space," which it could make available by early 2009, when broadcasters are scheduled to return their analog channels and switch to all-digital transmission.
The so-called "white space" is comprised of channels in the broadcast band that were historically set aside as unused "guard bands." This was done to avoid interference with stations transmitting on adjacent channels in the same market and broadcasts on the same channel in nearby markets.
The Commission's current proceeding reflects a growing belief that, thanks to modern technology, these channels can be made available for unlicensed use without causing harmful interference to licensed broadcasters. But, at the same time, the politically powerful broadcast industry is pushing the FCC to place onerous restrictions on unlicensed use of the white space. Should the FCC accept broadcasters' self-serving arguments, this historic opportunity for broadband innovation, competition and expanded access could be lost to the American people.
Should the Commission open up the white space for unlicensed use, many parts of the country could see as much as 150-200 MHz of unlicensed spectrum become available, with more than 200 MHz potentially available in some areas. To put this in perspective, consider that: 1) the entire cellular, PCS and recently auctioned AWS bands include 50 MHz, 120 MHz, and 90 MHz, respectively and; 2) the white space spectrum has much better propagation characteristics than the 83.5 MHz of spectrum in the heavily used 2.4 GHz unlicensed band and, even more so, than the unlicensed bands above 5 GHz, which are not well suited for wide area access networks.
The white space proceeding (Docket 04-186) requires the FCC to make decisions on a number of technical and operational issues that together will determine how much and on what terms white-space spectrum will be made available--and, potentially, the nature and economic viability of networks and services employing that spectrum. Between late January and early March of this year, the Commission received two rounds of comments on these issues.
Having read most of these comments, I developed my own recommendations for how best to address issues raised in the white space proceeding.
At the core of my recommendations is a proposal to encourage white space-enabled "Public Interest IP" networks that use public spectrum assets to serve the public interest more directly and fully than has been the case in the past. As their acronym suggests, these PIIP networks would serve as open-access "pipes" for transmission of Internet Protocol data packets and the nearly endless forms of IP-based content and service this would enable.
In contrast to the profit-seeking motivation of private network operators, a key financial goal of PIIP networks would be to move in the direction of providing free universal connectivity, to the extent this can be done in an economically sustainable manner. In this respect, the PIIP model is a 21st century expression of the underlying "public interest" principle shared by the 20th century policy goals of "universal phone service" and "free over-the-air television."
Key goals of the PIIP proposal contained in this report are to maximize: 1) the amount and efficiency of white space spectrum made available for unlicensed use and; 2) the benefits associated with harnessing that spectrum to the purposes of municipal or "community" broadband networks. These benefits include:
1) more universal and affordable Internet access;
2) providing a low-cost and Internet-friendly open-access alternative to incumbents' vertically-integrated "gatekeeper" access models;
3) delivering cost savings and increased efficiencies to local governments and other non-market "public service" institutions;
4) increasing beneficial "externalities," including economic growth and social value driven by the Internet's ability to facilitate efficient exchange, evaluation, combination and implementation of new ideas;
5) a lessening of the First Amendment restrictions on non-licensees that result from the FCC's practice of granting exclusive spectrum licenses.
6) cost sharing and cooperation with next-generation public safety networks that will be using 700 MHz spectrum in the same timeframe that white space spectrum becomes available.
Though the PIIP proposals discussed in my report encompass a range of specific options, they all assume, to varying degrees, the following general roles for local governments:
1) helping to maximize the amount and efficiency of white space spectrum use while, at the same time, helping to avoid and, as necessary, resolve interference problems with broadcasters and other spectrum users;
2) providing rights of way and other resources to support efficient network deployment and operation, including cooperation and, as appropriate, coordination with public safety networks and users;
3) delivering public services and facilitating other economic, political and social benefits via white space-enabled networks that provide broadly available untethered and non-discriminatory access to the Internet;
4) through these cost savings, efficiencies, services and benefits, generating value that can help justify the cost of providing universal broadband Internet connectivity.
|
STATE BLOGS
