Live Blog Tonight on Public Airwaves/Infrastructure

by: Matt Stoller

Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 19:00


Full archives of Legislation 2.0 on a national broadband strategy are available here.

Welcome back!  Last night's conversation was wild, with the AT&T-backed Hands off the Internet representative Chris Wolf and the Verizon and AT&T-backed Latino Coalition representative Robert Deposada unexpectedly showing up to debate.  Ben Scott of Free Press, Mark Rotenberg of EPIC, Adam Green of Moveon, and many others were in the comment area advocating their positions on net neutrality and open internet architecture.  This sprawling, transparent, and open conversation with multiple stakeholders is exactly what we are aiming for with Legislation 2.0 (the St. Louis Post-Dispatch picked up the project here)

Tonight is another conversation with a spirited group on internet access and the public airwaves.  This is perhaps the most timely of the discussions, since the FCC is about to set rules to auction off the '700' band of spectrum.  A core element of the next internet infrastructure will be wireless, as Senator Durbin notes in his introductory video.  Media Access Project Senior Vice President Harold Feld, Wharton Professor and former FCC Chief Economist Gerald Faulhauber, New America wireless program director Sascha Meinrath, and North Carolina-based Mountain Area Information Network operator Wally Bowen join us tonight (and possibly some exciting other guests).  They are going to mix it up with our own resident telecom expert commenter, mitchipd.  Senator Durbin may even show up depending on quorum calls (the Senate doesn't operate according to our schedule, apparently).

Two themes keep weaving among the various posts on the public airwaves.  The first is how wifi situates itself within the so called 'junk band' of spectrum, and was an unexpected innovation due to an unlicensed regulatory regime in that band.  The second theme is how a huge amount of spectrum is going unused.  Feld can be classified as a person who subscribes to the 'commons' notion of spectrum, and wants to do away with auctions all together.  Faulhaber wants spectrum treated as property, and dislikes the storehouse that is kept off the market by the government.  But both believe that we need to use our public airwaves much more efficiently than is currently the case.  The 700 band of spectrum is on all of our minds as we move forward in thinking about national broadband policy.  And Bowen adds a sense of urgency to the question with his personal experience running a Wireless ISP (or 'WISP').

Our WISP curently operates in the 900 MHz unlicensed bands.  Our service is managed, secure and can reach out to 20 miles.  Our tech suport is local.  The signal can punch through heavy leafcover, but it cannot penetrate buildings and it requires "near line-of-sight."

Despite high demand for our services, we can only reach a fraction of the market due to the limitations of 900 MHz.

We desperately need access to unlicensed spectrum in the lower frequencies.

Given the industry opposition to municipal wireless, our nonprofit business model appears to be the only viable alternative to the cable/telco duopoly.  If we are to rely on market forces to enforce "net neutrality" -- and bridge the Digital Divide -- broad access to lower-frequency unlicensed spectrum is absolutely essential.

I'm hoping tonight's discussion can be as lively as the other two have been.  Please allow about 15 minutes before you post a comment, so Feld, Faulhauber, and Meinrath can kick off tonight's conversation.


UPDATE: Markham Erickson of the Google-backed Open Internet Coalition will also join in the comments.  His position is outlined in this letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin.

Matt Stoller :: Live Blog Tonight on Public Airwaves/Infrastructure

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Live Blog Tonight on Public Airwaves/Infrastructure | 93 comments
Greetings! (0.00 / 0)
Russ Newman here from the Senator's staff. Our guests should be here shortly, if not already here. I would ask that we give Mr. Feld, Mr. Meinrath and Dr. Faulhauber 15 minutes to kick off our discussion before everyone weighs in. Hopefully the Senator will be able to make an appearance as well depending on workings on the floor.
Unused spectrum (0.00 / 0)
Hi everyone, I am not an expert on this, so perhaps the experts int eh room can answer my question: why is there such a large part of the spectrum that is unused? Has it been reserved for some other purpose? Was it not accessible via low cost technologically until very recently, if ever? It just seems strange to me that so much of it is currently unused.
The empty air (4.00 / 3)
This needs to be answered in a couple of different ways.

The first is recourse the to spectrum allocation chart.  If you look at it, you will see that the federal government holds big chunks of spectrum for exclusive use.  Some of this is used intensely, others much less intensely.  Some not at all.  Various federal agencies, such as the TVA, hold blocks of allocated spectrum because back when the government was deciding what went into commercial use and what went into government use, these agencies wrangled a block.  I have suggested ways to address this inefficiency in my lead off post.

Second, even looking at commercial space, there are blocks that are not used efficiently.  There is considerable debate on the cause of this, but there is a mix of explanations.  I expect Gerry will lay the primary blame on inefficient allocatiuon by government, and there is much truth to that.  The spectrum bands are littered with slivers of services that either didn't work out because of "command and control" limitations ow which are only used for a few purposes or in a few geographic locations.  For example, we have a band allocated to "park rangers" that is used in Yellowstone but not very much in NYC.

Finally, there is the fact that even in intensely used space, such as television, radio and cellular services, there is a lot of "dead air."  The television band has vacant channels because when the FCC set the standards for television, a full 6 MHz of spectrum was needed as a guard band. This is incredibly wastefull under today's tech standards, but this space is guarded by politically powerfull and well funded incumbents.

The question is, how to use this "dead air" more efficiently.  The property school argues that making spectrum property will provide incentive for licensees to use the spectrum most efficiently.  I have stated my problems with that elsewhere.  The commons school argues that "smart" radios designed to avoid interfering with each other can use the spectrum inetnsely and efficiently without the need for a property right.  I will leave discussion of this to Sascha, who has done a lot more practical work here.

For myself, I see problems with both approaches.  There are intense, high power uses that are facilitated by licensing.  It is unclear to me that a mass media such as radio or television could have evolved under a commons regime.  At the same time, exclusive licensing raises many concerns, and exclusive licensing need not translate to property.

[ Parent ]
Thanks! (0.00 / 0)
Is there a link to the spectrum allocation chart? I'd like to check that out.
[ Parent ]
Citizen's Guide to the Airwaves. (4.00 / 1)
Hi Chris,

There's a great resource, The Citizen's Guide to the Airwaves, that New America Foundation put out a few years back:

http://www.newameric...

Definitely worth a quick look.

[ Parent ]
Thanks! (0.00 / 0)
nt
[ Parent ]
Oh yeah (0.00 / 0)
that is a good one.  That came out in 2003 or early 2004 I believe.
[ Parent ]
SDR & Cognitive Radio Technology. (4.00 / 3)
With the advent of software defined and cognitive radio technologies, the FCC may not have much of a choice when it comes to smart devices using unused airwaves.  Within the next decade you'll be able to buy devices wherein the software can actively survey the electronic spectrum in its vicinity and choose unused channels automatically. 

Unfortunately, the FCC is completely out to lunch when it comes to proactively dealing with SDR and cognitive radio technologies -- they've basically refused to provide space and/or legal sanction for them.  What this means is that they might not be entirely legal.  The problem is, what happens when you build roads, but no crosswalks?  People jaywalk.  Spectrum is going to be the same way, and the FCC will face a situation whereby they're forced to prevent electromagnetic jaywalking in every location in the country, all the time, on every frequency and modulation.  It can't be done, and could have been greatly ameliorated with a bit of forward thinking.

You can read more about these issues here (from 2005) and here (from earlier this month).

[ Parent ]
Hi Everyone. (0.00 / 0)
Markham Erickson here from the Open Internet Coalition.  Very timely discussion on what has become (and rightly so) and highly charged and much watched issue.
Welcome... (0.00 / 0)
Glad to have you here.
[ Parent ]
A Good, Clean Vigorous Debate! (4.00 / 1)
Thanks Russ, and my thanks to Senator Durbin for the opportunity to debate these issues here.

I'm very pleased Dr. Gerry Faulhauber is here to present the "property" view.  I don't consider myself a full "commons" adherent since I do not see exclusive licensing withering away anytime soon.  But I do see that it's utility should be constantly justified in the face of technological advances.

I cheated (with Gerry's permission) and posted a lengthy challenge to the underlying economic theory behind auctions/propety.  Empircal evidence from the last 15 years has simply not born out the underlying theory that distributing exclusive licenses via auctions provides the best return for the public -- either in revenue to the treasury or from a social utility perspective.

But I also very much want to raise the First Amendment argument.  I written an academic piece on this available here: http://commlaw.cua.e....  Briefly, the use of exclusive licensing is a restraint on speech.  It is only tenable under the First Amendment because such restraint is necessary to create the possibility of any use of spectrum (aka "the scarcity doctrine").  As technology eliminates scarcity, the artifical restraint on speech becomes more problematic.  Although I do not believe that "scarcity is dead" (in the sense that we can abolish exclusive licensing), I do beleive that technology holds that promise.  Accordingly, we cannot, as a First Amendment matter, permanently foreclose the vast majority of people from speaking through the electromagnetic spectrum by creating a perpetual exclusive property interest.

Flakey Internet & the Reason for this Discussion in the First Place. (4.00 / 1)
Hi everyone,

I'm a bit late due to my Internet being a bit messed up (I know, timely and ironic).  I posted a fairly extensive opening post here, which I encourage folks to skim and provide feedback, commentary, etc. 

Much of my work has been outside the beltway -- grassroots initiatives spanning projects at the local, state, and national levels.  But I'm also actively working to bridge the gap between those of us working on the ground and the policy folks holed up inside the beltway.  You can find out more about me at SaschaMeinrath.com.

I think there's a tremendous amount of expertise and insight to be garnered from the non-lobbyists across the nation -- it's about time that we started to see telecommunications legislation that directly addressed _our_ concerns. 

The Uphill Battle for Open Access (4.00 / 1)
Earlier this week, all five FCC commissioners came before members of the House during a Commerce Committee hearing. This seemed to be a perfect opportunity for Congress and at the FCC to discuss widespread calls for open access to soon to be auctioned spectrum. But, with very few exceptions, these officials refused to take seriously an open access proposal put forward by leading members of industry, public advocates and consumer rights groups. How is it that an issue, which seems to have wide public support, can't gain traction in Congress -- even among some of the greatest proponents of a more democratic Internet? What can we do to make Open Access a condition for use of spectrum that will go on the block next year?
Open Access in its Many Flavors. (4.00 / 1)
Tim Karr raises an incredibly important point.  Whether we're discussing Network Neutrality, Structural Separation, Unlicensed Spectrum, Common Carriage, etc. many of the debates are over ideas of open access.  On the one hand you have many of us fighting to lower barriers to entry, increase diversity and affordability, and empower end-to-end networking; on the other, you have folks who seek to ensure reliability, sustainability and return on investment.  As a believer in communications as a fundamental human right, I support open networking and access; were I focused more on my stock portfolio, perhaps I'd throw in with the latter faction. 

Our legislators and regulators have placed too much of an onus on the commodification of communications and an analysis of monetary gain.  The social benefits of communications are often considered externalities to these models; in the end, you have "solutions" that are both based upon faulty assumptions and don't actually capture the essence of why communications is important and what its impacts are.

[ Parent ]
The Status Quo (0.00 / 0)
Hi Tim,
I think the challenge you're discussing one is related to the political difficulty in trying to alter the status quo.  The calclation we're faced with is trying to decide whether it's worth it to pursue a bold idea when the pay off is uncertain and the risk is high.  If the policy is worth pursuing, the answer to this dilema is education, which is challenging given the average work load and attention span of congressional staff and other policy makers.  While groups like Media Matters and Free press are doing a great job of that, more needs to be done.  And there needs to be significantly more demonstration of grassroots support for this policy area.

There are no easy answers here.....it takes a lot of leg work.

[ Parent ]
Agencies and Congress (0.00 / 0)

The agencies are not taking the legislature seriously.  It's really a quite notable phenomenon.  There's a serious need for Congressfolk to look into why that is -- taking it from a perspective of the powers of the respective branches.
[ Parent ]
The 700 MHz Auction (0.00 / 0)
I want to reiterate what Tim Karr just said.  The possibility for the first wireless wholesaler exists if the FCC makes the right decision on the 700 MHz auction.  While the record has closed, Members of Congress can still help make this happen by pushing for wholesale open access.

My most recent summary of the political situation here:
http://www.wetmachin...

Senator Durbin's Location (0.00 / 0)
Hi all,
Dave Lazarus here from Senator Durbin's staff.  Thanks everyone for your patience.  I think we have a very impressive group of experts assembled.  Tonight could very well be the most substantive night of the series.

As for Senator Durbin, if you turn your television to C-SPAN, you'll see he is currently presiding in the Senate (pretty good alibi, right?), so we're going to have to begin without him.  We have a couple of staffers here who will answer questions, ask questions, and relay this info to the Senator.

Thanks!

Crickets..... (0.00 / 0)
OK, either we've completely intimidated everyone, completely bored everyone, or everyone agrees that me and Sacha have the answers for all our spectrum issues.

I'm hoping for the later.

it's neither (0.00 / 0)
I'm not bored, but sometimes I don't know exactly what questions to ask. so for now I lurk.

--Jon (common cause guy)

[ Parent ]
Here's a question (0.00 / 0)
Are there pieces of telco legislation out there that are worth cosponsoring? 

Dave

[ Parent ]
Actually (0.00 / 0)
I don't know much about this topic, but I do know that the discussion this week is geared toward making a piece of legislation that will be worth co-sponsoring. With all these experts, and well over 500 comments during the week, we are well on our way, I think.
[ Parent ]
Bills (4.00 / 1)
Yes, Chris, that's our driving intent.  But in addition to introducing legislation, we are always looking for bills that are worthy of cosponsorship, so that we can pursue and support multiple ideas.
[ Parent ]
2 Initiatives Whose Time has Come. (4.00 / 2)
Hi Chris,

In my initial blog post, Three Solutions for a Better National Telecommunications Infrastructure, I put out two ideas for innovative projects that I think should be included in national legislation: 

    In the wireless realm, I propose we create the National Wireless Research Institute (download the NWRI 1-pager here) -- a national effort to research, develop, and implement wireless broadband technologies that expand digital inclusion.  In the wired realm, we need to foster data acquisition for Internet researchers and broadband connectivity for underserved communities.

    The COMMONS Project helps accomplishes both goals (download the COMMONS Project 1-pager here).

The 1-pagers are a way to get a quick overview for each proposal.

[ Parent ]
Clearly (4.00 / 1)
I didn't even know the little bit that I thought I did. :)
[ Parent ]
Can you give more details about the COMMONS project? (0.00 / 0)
Sascha - I think a lot of folks here might be interested in what that's all about.
[ Parent ]
COMMONS Project Information: (4.00 / 1)
In a nutshell, the COMMONS Project solves two major issues:

1. Network researchers have had an increasingly difficult time getting access to Internet data since the privatization of NSFnet (the main Internet backbone at the time) in 1995.  While several research and educational networks exist, the data one can collect on these is not equivalent to actual Internet data.  In the end, network researchers have bandwidth, but no users.

2. Communities across the United States have users, but inadequate bandwidth.  What bandwidth exists is often expensive.

COMMONS marries these two constituencies together -- it's a partnership among leading research institutions, industry, and participating networks to provide data to researchers in return for bandwidth to communities.  You can read more about the initiative here:

http://www.caida.org...

[ Parent ]
Bills to cosponsor (0.00 / 0)
I cited two in my introductory post. First the Wireless Innovation Act of 2007 (sponsored by Kerry) would compel the FCC to complete the pending "white spaces" proceeding in a way that would ensure enough usable spectrum.

The Lautneberg/McCain Community Broadband Act I have mentioned elsewhere.

Finally, I would support the amendment by Senator Cantwell to protect unlicensed devices in the 900 MHz band.

[ Parent ]
Maybe you guys should just go at it :) (0.00 / 0)
That would certainly be an amazing conversation, ala the one in the post earlier today.
[ Parent ]
Not bored (4.00 / 1)
I want to know what the likely outcome of the spectrum auction will be and why.
[ Parent ]
One Problem with Spectrum Auctions. (4.00 / 1)
Hi Julia,

One major problem with spectrum auctions is that they greatly privilege incumbents by erecting a _massive_ barrier to entry.  If I'm a new entrant, or a non-profit, or a start-up business, chances are I don't have the deep pockets necessary to go after a frequency.  Traditionally, regulators realized this and reserved parts of the spectrum specifically for non-profit and educational use...  ever wonder why all the NPR stations seem to be clustered around the low end of the FM dial?  It's because that part of the spectrum was basically reserved for non-commercial radio.

Today our regulations seem driven by the sole goal of maximizing monetary return (as if maximizing cash somehow equates with maximizing the public good).  So the FCC tends to follow a course that brings in the most money (i.e., spectrum auctions) without really looking at the secondary and tertiary effects and the opportunity costs of these policies.  In the end (and in answer to your question), the most likely outcome is that major telecom companies (or other massive conglomerates with deep enough pockets to compete) will likely buy the frequencies available through spectrum auction, leaving the non-profits, educational institutions, and community media out in the cold.

[ Parent ]
That depends on the rules . . . (4.00 / 1)
Rules determine outcomes.  For source material, please see the 2006 study of FCC auctions by Gregory Rose for the Center for American Progres, http://www.americanp...
and subsequent follow up of last summer's AWS auction. http://www.newameric...

Under traditional auction rules, the incumbents will win the majority of the spectrum.  The FCC proposes to adopt anonymous bidding, which will help.  But it must also do more to help overcome incumbent advanatges.  This could include limiting how much spectrum an incumbent can win ("spectrum caps"), keeping incumbents out altogether, a "new entrant credit," or wholesale open access to reduce the incumbent blocking premium.

[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
I get that and that Martin put out a ruling that only went part way towards the open rules that Google and others are calling for.  It was implied that the move by Martin made it less likely that the totally open rules would be adopted.  Is that a fair assessment?
[ Parent ]
From Dr. Faulhaber earlier: (0.00 / 0)
Earlier, Gerald Faulhaber said, "Last time I looked at Part 15 of the Act, I counted up over 600 MHz available for unlicensed use.  Granted, a good deal of it is encumbered, and any use of unlicensed commons means accepting interference (e.g., 2.4GHz band).  But the spectrum is out there.  If it is not being used today, then why are we anxious to allocate even more spectrum to unlicensed use?"

Sascha or Harold, how would you respond to that?

Is unlicensed space being used efficiently? (4.00 / 1)
OK, a couple of things here.

1) Not all spectrum is the same.  Physics matter.  Much of the  available spectrum is in stuff that less useful for things like broadband because it takes significant energy subject to send signal and because the signal is easily blocked by things like leaves.

2) Power also matters.  There's a lot of space available in Part 15, but much at power levels so low they are worthless for most applications beyond what they are used for already.  For example, the power levels available in the FM band allow you to send a signal about 15 ft.  That works fine for an iTrip or Mr. Microphone.

3) A few big chunks freed up recently are at the beginning stages of usefullness.  The FCC opened up about 250 MHz in the 5.3 GHz band in 2003 once the military was satisfied that devices would not interfere with military RADAR.  That standard development took until 2006.  Once those devices become more widely available, it will boost available spectrum considerably.

4) By contrast, the most useful bands in terms of physical characteristics and power, 900 Mhz, 2.4 GHz, and 5.8 GHz, are intensely used.  Indeed, they are so intensely used that property proponents keep predicting a "tragedy of the commons" any day now, when interference makes use impossible.  Christian Sandvig has done some good work demonstrating that most of the evidence for such a "tragedy" is exagerated.

[ Parent ]
Useful Chunks (0.00 / 0)
What are some of the devices that will be able to take advantage of this spectrum?  When do you think they'll become more widely available? 
[ Parent ]
It's not devices, it's applications (4.00 / 1)
Once the FCC finishes blessing the protocols and power limits, the capacity can be built into any device.  I would expect the most significant applications will be for networking and mobile devices.

What is significant is not just opening the block of spectrum itself, but the capacity to sense an incoming signal and dodge out of the way to avoid interfering.  This is the sort of "smart radio" capacity that Sascha was discussing.

[ Parent ]
That's a laugh... (4.00 / 1)
How about I sell you 600 square meters of land for you to build a skyscraper...  Only thing is there's a few different zoning ordinances involved and they might not be continuous. 

After that, I've got a bridge I can sell you.  ;)

Seriously, though -- I was talking with a senior engineer at a major corporation and he mentioned that I could use unlicensed up in the 60+GHz range to do point-to-point connections.  I was both really excited and confused as to why I'd never heard of this option in my years of involvement in community wireless circles.  After wracking my brain for awhile about various pros and cons I finally realized I hadn't asked what the cost involved was; his reply, "Really cheap, only $50,000 a link!"

I don't know about you, but I just don't see too many consumers buying $50,000 tranceivers on their Best Buy credit card.

[ Parent ]
higher frequency = higher cost (4.00 / 1)
One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet is that receivers that operate at a higher frequency, universally cost more to design and build than radios at lower frequencies, given the same bandwidth/capabilities.  Component tolerances are tighter, the RF leakage is greater, and the kinds of parts needed are more expensive.

This is yet another reason why the 700 Mhz band is more attractive compared to the current 2.4 Ghz wifi spectrum.

end the occupation of Iraq

[ Parent ]
What information is necessary for an informed debate on spectrum? (0.00 / 0)
This one is for all the experts on hand tonight:

What information is needed so we can all have the "same facts" (big or small) in this debate? Similarly, where can we look online for this information?

I work on the Congresspedia.org wiki and we've just now put up an open knowledge base to collect all the research, arguments and data around the issues Senator Durbin is addressing in his bill. (I blogged about it here.) We've got a very solid page on spectrum that's been started by Drew Clark and the guys over at the Center for Public Integrity's telecom reporting project, but I'm sure even they haven't thought of everything.

Know any good online resources on this issue, not matter how wonky or obscure? Any questions that could be answered to move the debate forward? If you can give us a few leads I'm sure we could shake out something useful. (Any and all participants are welcome to come over and post what they know, by the way.)

Congresspedia.org, the citizen's encyclopedia on Congress.

Database (0.00 / 0)
I think that's a tremendous idea, Conor.  I'm going to check out your spectrum page.  Are there other good sites that you'd recommend for telco policy related to auctions?

This relates to Tim Karr's question too - one of the most effective things you all can do as advocates is to take complex issues, package and simplify them, and share them with the relevant policymakers.

If you can provide good quality, relatively brief information and explain why taking positions will be beneficial to policymakers, you will develop relationships with policymakers and start to influence the way policy is created.

[ Parent ]
You mean other than my blog . . . (0.00 / 0)
Sorry, couldn't resist.

The New America Foundation has a huge amount of useful information in the "wireless future" program.  There is also a good piece by (I think) David Weinberg out there, but I'm blanking on the title.  David Isenberg also has some good material.

I highly recommend David Reed's work as well. David is at MIT and really knows the physics of this stuff.

Last but not least, Dave Hattfield at U Col. has published a lot of good stuff.

[ Parent ]
Objective Research & System(atic) Data Collection. (4.00 / 1)
If people knew how little we actually know about the Internet, they'd (wisely) be quite a bit freaked out.  Systematic data collection on spectrum use, Internet use metrics, etc. are completely missing.  Such simple data as "what does bandwidth cost per Mbps around the country" don't exist in the public domain.  Spectrum use likewise isn't tracked. 

Yet we continue to see policies being drafted based on "the best available data" -- which usually is spun to mean, "whatever the companies affected by these policies portray as the best available data." 

Telecommunications is facing a data acquisition crisis of unprecedented proportions.  Clearly putting more data into the public domain needs to be a priority.  Left on their own, industry wants to treat just about every piece of useful data as proprietary, regardless of the impacts of these practices to the general public.

[ Parent ]
Data (0.00 / 0)
Sascha - I agree with your assessment of the problem.  However, I disagree with your conclusion that policies are being drafted based on what the companies portray as the best data available.  For instance, there are two bills pending in the Senate right now geared toward increased data collection.  The Connect the Nation Act (S. 1190) and the Broadband Data Availability Act introduced by Senator Inouye.  These are bills designed to increase data collection and are oriented toward correcting the problem you cite.
[ Parent ]
Good points! (0.00 / 0)
There has been a sea change in the direction of debate, and I do agree that we're moving in the right direction with the bills you've cited (so I take back my overly broad stroke and am replacing my paint roller with a more appropriately sized brush ;).  My hope is that these bills make it through the sausage machine as something resembling their initial intention (and you can count on my support to help with that in any way I can). 

We very much need substantial new data collection at the national level -- it's something that the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis has been working on for years. 

[ Parent ]
part of this is cultural (4.00 / 1)
The telco world is a hard nut to crack context wise. The culture is that of proprietary, exclusive knowledge and lingo. They're just not used to sharing.

I had to teach myself how to order a T1, design a corporate phone system, wire it... the whole works a few years ago.  Getting all that information is like pulling teeth.

I think maybe there should be a group at FCC that puts together and maintains a body of knowledge of the statistics we need here simply because I think that it's not in the nature of telecommunications types to share data on their own... so we need a group of people who's job it is to ask for it.

[ Parent ]
hear hear (0.00 / 0)
and let's try to explain network conditions, hops and QoS and explain the nature of corporations to want to keep any data proprietary, probably under a NDA or confidentiality agreement!

Congress needs a GAO that is stocked with STEM in order to give them a detailed technical analysis to derive public policy in the national interest.  Add a little group of economists on trade to that sort of need.  Kind of a new CBO type of organizations.


NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
Harold didn't mention . . . (0.00 / 0)
His own blog over at http://wetmachine.co... actually explains a lot of the stuff surrounding these issues in language even I can understand.
[ Parent ]
Durbin now on (0.00 / 0)
Sorry I was delayed in joining you. I was called to preside over the Senate, but I will join you for as long as my schedule permits tonight.
I enjoyed our exchange Tuesday evening and am ready to hear more from you.  There are a couple of specific things I'd like to hear from you on this evening. 

I'm interested in learning more about what local communities have done to provide universal access.  Is wifi the answer?  And how are communities organizing to develop universal coverage? 

What's the role of states?  Senators Lautenberg and McCain are proposing legislation to preserve the right of states to pursue this kind of coverage.  How does that factor into what communities are trying to do? 

Do you think I should cosponsor that legislation?


In Philadelphia (0.00 / 0)
Senator Durbin, thanks for doing this. I posted this in an earlier thread, but it is relevenat to your quesiton, so I'll do so again.

I wanted to talk a little about what has happened in my hometown, Philadelphia, and how a national broadband policy needs to do better than what happened here.

Two years ago, the city of Philadelphia passes a proposal to provide free wireless access to the entire  city. However, the state legislature intervened when Verizon objected. After months of intense lobbying, we were able to save the plan in Philadelphia. However, the state mandated that any other city or town in Pennsylvania that wanted to provide free wireless access to all of their residents would have to get Verizon's approval first. It was a straight-up corporate giveaway, and a clear snub to the residents of the state.  Corporate interests were put before the educational and communication interests of the rest of the state.

I wanted to ask / plead with you: please, please make sure that a national broadband program does not turn into a corporate giveaway to huge companies like Verizon. Don't repeat Pennsylvania's mistakes. No government--local, state or federal--should be mandating that corporations control access to the internet. Localities like Philadelphia that wish to pursue free wireless programs should be free to do so without the consent of the Verizons of the world. Please, as you craft this legislation, don't let private gateholders control who has access. To make a double Al Gore reference, a wonderfully free medium like the Internet should be fostered to become the province of the people, not the powerful.

[ Parent ]
Couldn't agree more (4.00 / 1)
Chris, I have said it before and I'll say it again - I think it is absurd for states/municipalities to try restrict broadband service in that way. The analogy I often use is that of municipal utilities -- it would be like telling my hometown of Springfield that the city can't operate its own power plant. Thanks for sharing the Philadelphia experience.
[ Parent ]
FCC auction (0.00 / 0)
Senator,

I would encourage you to speak out on the current 700 spectrum auction, which holds promise for freeing our locked in relationship to AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint by opening up some excellent public airwaves.  The Democrats have been relatively silent on principles of openness.

The Google public policy blog has more: http://googlepublicp...

And Senator Edwards wrote a great letter to the FCC.  A link to his letter is here: http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/5/30/143244/196

The rules are being set now, and pressure would be exceptionally useful.

[ Parent ]
I agree - we need you here Senator Durbin (0.00 / 0)
Hi Senator, this is Adam Green with MoveOn.org Civic Action.

I agree with Matt.

A key way to increase high-speed Internet throughout our communities, including rural and poor communities that big phone and cable companies have left behind, is to support the modern-day innovators who want to create a national wireless Internet market. That means supporting "open access" on this wonky thing called the "700 megahertz" auction.

The short of it is that when TVs switch to digital technology, big TV stations like NBC, ABC, and CBS are giving back to the public a HUGE and VERY POWERFUL chunk of the public airwaves. These can be used for TV, radio, cell phones, or...wireless Internet. Airwaves this powerful become available once in a generation, if that often.

Senator, if we allowed modern-day innovators to do their thing, in a competitive marketplace, these airwaves could be used to beam powerful high-speed wireless Internet signals to every park bench, coffee shop, home, and workplace in America --- saving families and businesses tons of money.  (It wouldn't be free, there would just be tons more competition than there is now.) It's essentially a tax cut for middle-class families and businesses.

Big phone and cable companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast are willing to spend billions to win control of these airwaves. Why? They have zero interest in allowing a competitive national wireless to emerge. They want to keep us in the stone age - with no modern innovation creating a market alternative to their wire-based DSL and cable Internet lines.

WE NEED YOU TO HELP. This is one of those issues that need a champion. A loud, bold champion. This is a total political winner. MoveOn put out a petition on this issue, and despite the fact that most people hadn't heard of it before, it did tremendously well...hundreds of thousands of people signing it...more than on some issues that everyone's heard of.

And a recent development -- Google announced they will bid at least $4.6 billion on the auction if the FCC goes with "open access" policies. So it's a budget winner too.

Would you consider being a champion for this issue, Senator?

[ Parent ]
the wireless isn't enough (0.00 / 0)
Eventually, you have to attach it to the internet.  Say Verizon owns the fibre in your location.  To get a wireless network going, you eventually may have to trunk with them for the internet connection.

What if they put "no public networks" in their terms of service? They wouldn't be blocking your municipal wireless network with a statute or act of the legislature. They would simply be refusing to let you use their network to connect it to the internet.  And then the 700mhz spectrum becomes meaningless.

I think there would have to be clauses in any legislation that is meant to promote muni wireless that bar carriers from using terms of service / acceptable use policies to block sharing of a connection with others.  Especially muni broadband projects.

[ Parent ]
needs to be done right (0.00 / 0)
First, thank you Senator Durbin for taking leadership on these issues we are discussing here.

We need to do anything regarding universal access the right way to get the right result.

It's pointless to provide free wifi if it just benefits those who can already afford a laptop.

here in Maine, all kids in junior high school get free laptops for school. It's a pilot program that we hope to expand. Imagine that, combined with free wifi. Then every kid would have equal footing.

But right now, only the kids with broadband connections at home or can go to the library easily (or Panera...) can utilize the benefit of the internet.

You need both.

Also, the network needs to be able to handle the demands that are put upon it. It needs to be worth using.

But first and foremost, we need to ensure the right of municipalities to set up their own wifi networks. it's fine if they contract with private companies, but they should also have the options to go with non profits or set up their own system with their own people.

any funding attached to promote this should also ensure that the money doesn't just go to corporations, but could be used by municipalities and non profits.  We have our concerns here in Maine that a well-intentioned program called ConnectME is just a way to give money to Time Warner et al to do what they would be doing anyway. it's not clear that municipalities could use the funds to pay for setting up their own system or use a non profit.

these are a few of my thoughts. take them for what you will.

--Jon

[ Parent ]
Community-based, community driven (4.00 / 1)
Last year, the GAO study found that the single most important factor in the success of local broadband was finding a community based champion.  You can see links to the study and my analysis here: http://www.wetmachin...

It would be a tragedy if this became the captured preserve of corporations because local governments were "encouraged" or forced into public/private partnerships as the only model.  If the states are laboratories of democracy, think of how many many pilot projects they can run by letting each local government chose its own way.

[ Parent ]
Community champion (0.00 / 0)
Harold,
What do you mean by community champion?  Are you referring to a local individual or entity willing to see through a project?  What could the gvt do to help those motivated individuals along?
[ Parent ]
Models of community engagement (0.00 / 0)
There are many different models of community engagement.  I was referring particularly to an individual or organization that partners with local government or others to ensure that (a) the community feels engaged, (b) community needs are genuinely heard and addressed, (c) there is continuity after the initial network is established; and (d) there is a sense of ownership by the community.

Many initiatives fail because they do not address community needs or fit with the community paradigm. Ask Sascha about when they were networking Tribal Digital Village and the old woman who thought the computer with the network connection was a game, because no one had showed her what it could do or how it addressed her needs.  Or the community in Chile that wanted the network to help with garbage collection -- so they built sensors into the dumpsters.

[ Parent ]
depends on location, too (0.00 / 0)
In hilly areas (like most of the west coast), the available wireless spectrum just doesn't work that well. 

There's a project in San Francisco called SFLan that's been putting open-access 2.4GHz wireless nodes all throughout the city.  Problem is, it takes hundreds to carpet a city.  At 700 Mhz, it would take about 10 times fewer nodes for the same coverage (I'm pulling that number out of my ass, but it's likely close).  The physics just make for higher penetration with 700 Mhz.

In short, you can find these hotspots if you know where they are, but the project has not been entirely successful, in my mind, because the spectrum available is not very good.


end the occupation of Iraq

[ Parent ]
I'd definitely concur. (0.00 / 0)
Anti-municipal laws like HB30 in Pennsylvania have been a disaster for local autonomy and innovation.  Putting Verizon (in PA's case), or any corporation, in the position of having veto power over a local municipality's decision is bad public policy. 

I think that a bill that eliminated direct barriers to entry is a step in the right direction -- in the end, it provides one more broadband option for un(der)served communities.

[ Parent ]
Being a resident of PA, but not of Philly . . . (0.00 / 0)
Yes, please give us back our right to community wifi or any other sort of community network!

I'm one of the lucky ones who has a choice, but MANY of my friends in the more rural areas of our state either have the choice of oversubscribed cable that's sometimes slower than broadband, or satellite, which is costly to set up and has bad latency and just isn't very good. Snowstorms are apparently a big problem with satellite broadband, as can thunderstorms, both of which are common here.

[ Parent ]
Cosponsor Lautenberg/McCain (0.00 / 0)
First, my thanks to you again for participating.

The best source of information on municipal broadband deployment is Esme Vos' muniwireless.com website.  But allow me to describe a few specific examples.

About 2 hours north of here, in Cumberland MD, the county has a wireless network that is providing interoperable public safety communications and affordable broadband to a community that would not hope to see deployment by incumbents anytime soon.  Why?  Because the terrain and low population density makes it very expensive to provide service.  So the County has done it.

In Memphis TN, the city is providing wireless broadband through a municipally owned provider.  While the service is not profitable (yet), it has brought in two new technology businesses dirctly employing over 100 people and is attracting more attention.

In St. Cloud, Florida, the town is providing wireless internet access.  This has not only brought affordable internet access to residents and small businesses, it has prompted the local cable and telephone companies to upgrade their services and lower their prices to compete.

In Rockwood County, PA, a poor community in the Poconos, the local school district could not get internet access.  So they provisioned themselves by building a wireless network with unlicensed spectrum.  They offered subscriptions to the parents, so that children could do their homework and parents could become better involved in the school.

In San Diego county, the Tibal Digital Village is using technology developed by CUWIN and others to bring highspeed broadband to a federation of fourteen indian tribes in the arid region outside the city.  Before the arrival of the network, these tribes lacked basic phone service.  The ability to provision themselves has permitted them to unite culturally for the first time since they were settled in a geographically broken land more than 100 years ago.  It has transformed unemployed laborers with no skills into web designers and network administrators, and it has provided asource of revenue to the tribes.

These are only a few examples of what is possible when local governments have the freedom to provision themselves.

[ Parent ]
Thanks (4.00 / 1)
Harold, these are great examples of what communities are doing to address this.  This is the kind of information I can really use in conversations I have with people here. 

You've done a lot of great work helping people understand how FCC decisions affect people and communities on the ground.  That's an important part of policy-making -- connecting federal action to the communities we live in. 

Oh - and I appreciate the recommendation on Lautenberg/McCain.  I'm leaning in that direction.

[ Parent ]
The Lautenberg bill & the white space proceeding (0.00 / 0)
Yes Senator Durbin. Please do co-sponsor the Lautenberg bill.  Incumbents often have a lot of clout in state legislatures and in some states have gotten some pretty onerous restrictions passed on community broadband projects--restrictions that they'd never be willing to have applied to themselves.  Removing these restrictions is a key piece of the puzzle in terms of opening up avenues for more and better broadband access, especially in the communities that need it the most.

The community broadband movement also needs more and better spectrum, specifically the broadcast "white space" spectrum that's the subject of a pending FCC proceeding. Companies like Microsoft, Intel, Google, HP, Dell, Philips and others have joined together with advocates of unlicensed spectrum to demonstrate to the FCC that this spectrum should be opened up to unlicensed use.  It is much better than current WiFi spectrum for the kind of wide area networks communities need.  Broadcasters (and cable operators and some other incumbents) are trying to convince the FCC to NOT open this spectrum up for unlicensed use.

While this is largely a technical issue appropriately dealt with by the FCC, I'd urge the appropriate congressional committees to exercise careful oversight over the FCC's pending proceeding(Docket 04-186), to make sure the Commission doesn't buckle to pressure or obfuscation from broadcasters and lose this historic opportunity.

Together, community broadband, unlicensed white space spectrum and high-tech companies can open up a viable third pipe built on open-access principles.  The community broadband movement, the high-tech community and the Internet in general represent some of the most innovative and energized sectors of our economy.  Public policy should allow and even encourage them to work together synergistically.  The Lautenberg bill and opening up the white space are important steps in that direction.

[ Parent ]
In Louisiana (0.00 / 0)
Durbin asks re Lautenberg-Mcain:

"Do you think I should cosponsor that legislation?"

Yes, absolutely, please!

Drawing a line in the sand and establishing the principle is absolutely necessary.

BUT, I would caution you not to think that Lautenberg-McCain is more than a start that would prevent the worst-case scenario of states that outright forbid local folks to serving themselves.

For instance in my state, Louisiana, our lobbyist-written "Local Government Fair Competition Act" would probably pass muster under Lautenberg-McCain. It does not forbid municipalities from building competing networks outright. Instead it establishes a labyrinthine maze of hoops to jump through to get started and burdens municipalities (but not private providers) with special rules and a unique regulatory apparatus that is clearly intended to discourage all but the most wealthy and determined cities from pursuing the option.

This is not speculationâ??one need only look at the history of the fiber referendum in Lafayette and the long series of lawsuits that served only to delay Lafayette and intimidate others to understand that refusing to let states simply outlaw municipal networks is not enough to make sure that a municipal last mile is a practical alternative for our nation's cities. In point of fact New Orleans was forced to take down its free wifi system which proved invaluable in the early days after Katrina and which was expanded with generous help from around the nation because their attempts to mitigate this law in the legislature failed due to determined opposition from the incumbents..

Lautenberg-McCain is great. But please start planning the law that affirmatively gives municipalities the freedom to pursue any plan that would be legal for their private competition.

[ Parent ]
Better language than Lautenberg bill? (0.00 / 0)
John raises a good point.  Maybe we can come up with language that's even better than that in the Lautenberg bill in terms of preserving the rights of local communities to deploy broadband infrastructure without having to jump through years of hoops and legal challenges as occurred in Lafayette, which is finally moving forward with their fiber project. 

The good news for Lafayette is that fiber equipment has declined significantly in price during the delays.  But the bad news is that it'll take longer for the network to be operational, and they had to spend extra money on legal fees, etc.

Hopefully we'll get to provide some input on this to Senator Durbin as part of this project, and to leverage the best ideas of people around the country--especially those directly involved in muni projects and legislative battles in other states.  And also to bring more sunshine into the legislative process.

[ Parent ]
Hello to all from Serbia (0.00 / 0)
My name is Bogdan Tancic. I am coming from Serbia representing community wireless networks in Belgrade and Serbia(Europe). Some of you know me from the last two Wireless Summits that Sascha organized.
First of all I would like to support all of you for making up this kind of discussion. I hope this conversation will truly affect government way of looking at the public airwaves not only in US but in whole world. For the future effective use of wireless technology we would really need variety of open spectrum.
Just to mention (sorry for offtopic) that here, we still have telcom. monopoly on outgoing abroad landlines, so soon we'r going to start conversations with our agency for telecommunication (similar with FCC in US) to permit building wireless links to abroad so we make independent connections to all community networks in different countries at our region.
Also, I stand behind the words that net neutrality can be kept rising and connecting together community networks in whole world.
I'm not qualified to join your discussion about FCC regulations and future development of broadband technologies in US, but to mention again I came here to support the great work you are doing now.
Serbia (0.00 / 0)
Hi Bogdan,
Are there restrictions in Serbia on community projects?  Are there sources of information or technical assistance for your projects?

Hvala puno!

[ Parent ]
Serbia (0.00 / 0)
Hi DLazarus,

Honestly speaking there are no big restrictions on community projects, but also there is small interest of commercial and government factors within communities. We are trying to make this distance closer.
Since we made a huge break in this wireless sector, we are mostly trying to make international contacts and assistance with projects (because it is very hard to raise community non-profit projects based on domestic support).

Best wishes

[ Parent ]
Google and 700 Mhz spectrum (0.00 / 0)
Gerald said on another thread:
My problem is that Google and others (including those on this blog) want the FCC/Congress to force this model.  It doesn't have to be done this way.  If it is a good model, then by all means let Google buy the spectrum at auction and implement their model and we'll see how it works.  If they are successful at having the government impose their business model on 700 Mhz, all this means is that they will pay much less money for it, since no one will bid on it.  Are we really trying to save money for Google by having the government pre-approve their business plan?  Let 'em duke it out with the other guys and prove their model is the best.

My problem is that maxizing monetization of the spectrum for government coffers, does not mean it is the best use of the spectrum.  With the cheapness and ubiquity of wireless modules, even novice circuit board designers can make themselves a wireless system, however, the current designs are all restricted because the frequencies available are just not very good compared to this 700 Mhz band.

As I said before, every techie knows the challenges of the 2.4 GHz WiFi signals: move 3 feet one way, or turn your computer, and your signal may degrade enough that it becomes flaky.  This just won't happen with the 700 Mhz band: it'll penetrate right through objects, with the result that we'll have much more reliable wireless access for laptops, VOIP phones, wireless speakers, etc, etc, etc.

It's hard to put a price on this higher quality service for an open-access service.  All you can say that it will just work better, and I think consumers will want more products that work, rather than products that kind of work but you have to tweak for a while.



end the occupation of Iraq

comparion of 700 mhz sales (0.00 / 0)
Interesting point.  Does anyone have estimates of how much money this approach would bring in to the federal government versus the approach the FCC is now taking?  Has anyone seen anything?
[ Parent ]
unclear (0.00 / 0)
Right now, Google put out a $4.6 billion minimum offer for a band of spectrum in the 700 auction if it meets their requirements for openness.  So there's enough money there to meet Kevin Martin's reserve price (which is $4.6B).  There is no such offer on the table for an unrestricted band of spectrum, so it's even possible that open spectrum could bring in more money.
[ Parent ]
sorry for the bad grammar (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Revenue (0.00 / 0)
My understanding is the CBO estimate of the auction revenue is significantly higher than $4.6 billion.
[ Parent ]
Thaks Dave (0.00 / 0)
Since you work for me, you can just TALK to me rather than blog me!

But thanks!

[ Parent ]
only one piece (0.00 / 0)
Google's bid is only for one part of the spectrum.  $4.6 is the reserve price set by Kevin Martin.
[ Parent ]
$4.6 bil. + an open access network: sounds like a good deal to me (0.00 / 0)
Senator,

I'm sure there's pressure to generate revenue from the auction but, as you know (and, I think, the spectrum auction authorization law states), maximizing revenue should not be the primary driver of spectrum policy--especially given what's at stake. 

And, as Matt notes, no incumbent (or anyone else) has stepped up to match Google's $4.6 bil. commitment.

At this point, predicting auction revenue is tricky, since the FCC has not finalized auction rules.  The overriding policy issue should be to insure that an open-access alternative has the chance to be deployed.  Google's commitment strongly suggests this will occur if all four open-access requirements are applied to the auction.

Otherwise, it seems extremely likely that incumbents, who have substantial built-in bidding advantages, will end up the winning bidders (as they were with the recent AWS spectrum).  If that happens, one of the few remaining chances our country has to launch a wireless open access alternative will be lost.

If your staff hasn't reviewed this blog post from Google's DC Counsel, I strongly recommend it:
http://googlepublicp...
We also discussed this auction dynamics and pricing in an earlier thread this week:
http://www.openleft....
Thank you for asking.

[ Parent ]
Auction revenue (4.00 / 1)
As a warm up, I observe that the Communications Act prohibits the FCC from considering auction revenue when setting the rules because we are supposed to be maximizing the public interest, not merely a one-time gain.  See 47 USC 309(j).  So the FCC --properly -- will not do this comparison.

CBO scored the auction for $10 billion.  Other estimates go higher.  Prediciting auction revenue is difficult because there are so many factors that go into the estimation.  In 2000, a batch of less desirable spectrum went for $16 billion (or $4 MHz/pop).  The AWS auction, which made far more spectrum available, went for $13 billion but much less on a MHz/Pop basis (53 cents MHz/pop).

For reasons I will only link to now, I do not beleive that an open access condition reduces revenue.  I regret time does not allow me to summarize these things here.
http://www.wetmachin...

[ Parent ]
FCC required to not maximize revenue (0.00 / 0)
I didn't know the FCC was required to not maximize revenue, but rather to take the public interest into account.  Woohoo, a public-oriented regulation, must be at least 30 years old:

47 USC 309(j) 7(a) reads:

"...the Commission may not base a finding of public interest, convenience, and necessity on the expectation of Federal revenues from the use of a system of competitive bidding under this subsection."

A written rule is not as useful if it's not followed, of course. 

end the occupation of Iraq

[ Parent ]
I really can't add comment here, but, my humble opinion is.... (4.00 / 1)
I think that whatever bands that the FCC is going to be auctioning off in 2008 should be for the betterment of the PEOPLE, whether it be Google-run, Private Business-run or whomever, whatever, there has to be some kind of agreement that can be reached, by both the government *and* the private sector..yes, I know, I'm a dreamer, I admit to it....LOL!!!

I am on digital broadband and I am seriously thinking about trying Voip service--AGAIN!!!! Didn't work out too well the last time, but I am a forever optimist.

With all the technology that is in place now, and what else is yet to come, the airways should be FOR the people, BY the people and OF the people....

Kindest regards,
Persephone....

sdr/smart radio "sandbox" bands? (0.00 / 0)
There's talk of property vs commons views of spectrum and I've been following SDR's for a number of years.

If the FCC's been holding the devices up in legal limbo and the property advocates are skittish about the devices 'possibly' interfering with their bands what we're caught up in is an academic discussion entirely based on fear of the unknown.

Thing is, if we don't have a practical example of these devices in use on a mass scale, then we're basing policy on unproven theories.  That seems kind of dumb.

Perhaps when we provision spectrum we can have a SDR/smart radio band that partially overlaps another band that isn't being used for critical infrastructure (by that I mean, it's not the end of the world if the software barfs and it takes a couple days to patch it to clear the interference).

That way, we can have a control group (sdr's operating in the non-overlapping space) and a variable group (the overlapping section) and we can see what really happens instead of guessing like we've been doing.  Perhaps with a sunset provision that gives a legislative prompt to either shut down the overlap if it's a disaster or expand it if it's a success. And maybe an option to temporarily shut down the overlap any time if it really turns out poorly.

Really, this could be a good way because we have an environment where computer scientists and radio experts can conduct empirical research while making a decent living doing so (selling software and hardware).

But the underlying principle for me here is we should stop setting policy on a guess and find a way to make an informed decision on the issue.

Thanks and goodbye for tonight (4.00 / 2)
Thanks once again for a great conversation.

The Senate is going to be voting on amendments to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill in about 10 mins, so I need to head down to the floor.

I appreciate the input and look forward to seeing the rest of the conversation tomorrow?

Thank you, Senator (0.00 / 0)
Thank you for your time and willingness to engage us here.
[ Parent ]
A deeper problem with spectrum auctions (4.00 / 2)
Sascha,

There is a deeper problem with FCC spectrum auctions.  There is good empirical evidence to believe that the behavior of bidders in such auctions violates the independence and risk-neutrality assumptions of the Revenue Equivalence Theorem (RET).  As Paul Klemperer explains, "the revenue equivalence theorem states that when bidders in an auction are risk-neutral and have independent private values (or they have common values but receive independent signals), any auction format will generate on average the same revenue for the seller. However, revenue equivalence fails when bidders are risk-averse" (Auctions: Theory and Practice, Princeton, 2004, 17). 

The RET is the basis on which the government assumes that these auctions are revenue-maximizing. 

Submissions by bidders who participated in the AWS and other auctions in the FCC's proceeding on adopting anonymous bidding rules for the 700 MHz auction explicitly described their own bidding behavior and strategies in ways which disclose patent violation of both the independence and risk-neutrality assumptions of the RET.  They thought they were arguing why they needed maximum information about the behavior of other bidders in the auction.  What they were actually arguing was that their own behavior made it impossible to know whether previous auctions were revenue maximizing or not.

If bidder behavior makes it impossible to determine that FCC spectrum auctions are revenue-maximizing, the entire budgetary rationale for them collapses.

Revenue Equivalence Theorem & Faulty Assumptions. (0.00 / 0)
Point well taken -- auctions may very well be even less efficient at their main goal than regulators might hope.  Certainly we've seen incredibly wide variation on spectrum values over the years, and there are myriad ways in which auction bidders can (legally) collude to maximize their own ROI while short-changing the government.
[ Parent ]
Last of Durbin staff signing off (0.00 / 0)
Thanks once again everyone. While we're leaving for now, this topic is incredibly important. I'd like to encourage everyone to keep this topic going. We'll be checking back over the next few days for new responses.
Drat (0.00 / 0)
Could you show the senator my comment, Russ? :)

Thanks!

[ Parent ]
If only your Internet connection had been faster... (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
What Spectra Does Community Wireless Need (0.00 / 0)
I've been involved with community wireless here in Santa Cruz.  We never got very far, since the topography here (lots of hills and valleys, and many tall stands of trees) made setting up a network pretty difficult.

I'm hoping very much that the 700MHz band becomes available for shared use.  But I'm curious what will be needed to solve the following problems we encountered here in Santa Cruz:

  1. We need enough "bands" to allow us to put enough radios close to one another.  The 802.11 use of 2.4 GHz only allow us 3 effective bands (I know that there are officially 11, but you can only use at most 3 at a time: 1, 6, and 11. The rest interfere with one another).  A 700MHz allocation would hopefully allow for more non-interfering bands.

  2. Point to point service: you need to be able to distribute signals from some point where you have up-stream bandwidth (a shared DSL connection, a T1, etc.) to where people actually want to use the bandwidth.  I'm guessing that we could do this in the same bands around 700MHz, but am I right about this?  Is there a better band for distributing bandwidth point-to-point.

  3. We need some source for that up-stream bandwidth.  Here in Santa Cruz this was not as bad a problem as it might be elsewhere, because we have a well-established community ISP that is committed to community access.  In contrast, both AT&T and Comcast deliberately try to keep you from sharing bandwidth.  While I can understand some of their concerns, it should be possible for community activists to "interconnect" with the public internet in an economical manner without a lot of BS (a technical term for great steaming piles of corporate bureaucracy, BTW).

What would it take for us to create the legal and regulatory regime to do this easily?

community wireless (0.00 / 0)
#1 - The spectrum that is open is 22 Mhz wide, which is the same width as the three non-overlapping 802.11 channels (1,6,and 11, as you point out).  This could be split into four channels, but then each channel would only be .5 Mhz wide, giving you a maximum of 500 kbps service.

That could work for community broadband, however, a better use  is to use frequency hopping spread spectrum, or many other technologies like Sascha was pointing to above, which make the idea of "channel" obsolete.  The radio, in realtime, can scan the spectrum and use frequencies that are current unoccupied, millisecond by millisecond.  This sort of thing is easy and cheap to do nowadays, and makes for better utilization of the spectrum.

#2 not really relevent to today's discussion, but you should use what's called a "backhaul" line, which could be a point-to-point wireless link.  Since these are infrequent, you could use a $800 radio like a Morotola Canopy, which operates around 6Ghz but the RF signal can be blocked or degraded by something as thin as leaves on a tree.

#3: This is also a place for public regulation, where DSL or cable subscribers should be able to purchase service guarantees with minimum and maximum data rates, and what they use that bandwidth for is their own business.  If you want to share, or use video services, or play games, that should be fine and your business.  The carrier should not be able to say "no carpooling on our information superhighway", which ties into net neutrality, which says that even Buicks should be allowed on all info superhighways.


end the occupation of Iraq

[ Parent ]
oops, more bandwidth (4.00 / 1)
Oops, what I said in #1 isn't quite true, it's possible to get more than 500 kbps out of .5 Mhz, just not with simple digital signal.  Given the high quality of the 700mhz signal, it may be possible to get 2x, 4x or even 8x that data rate by using multi-level signaling, rather than just 0's and 1's.

end the occupation of Iraq
[ Parent ]
carpool. (0.00 / 0)
no carpooling on our information superhighway

I really like this analogy.

[ Parent ]
700 MHz Spectrum Auction -- Google's Gambit (4.00 / 1)
Google's gambit on the 700 MHz auction has shown a spotlight on a huge privatization of the commons that has gone virtually unnoticed by the vast majority of Americans, not to mention the majority of Congress and virtually all state and local legislators. 

For Sen. Durbin and his staff:  Is there any action Congress could take to halt this auction so that we can have a real public debate on the fate of this extremely valuable public real estate?

The fact that only one presidential candidate has publically commented on spectrum policy (Sen. Edwards) is clear evidence that this issue has not received the debate and scrutiny it deserves.

That said, Google's gambit is a smart business move, as its business model is more attuned to an open platform playing field than the traditional telco and cable fiefdoms.  We're just fortunate that, in this case, the public interest aligns more closely with Google's business model than that of the cable/telco duopoly.

Also, anyone interested in more competitive markets should clearly see that setting aside spectrum for wholesale distribution to independent ISPs, like the one I run in Asheville, N.C., creates more competition for the cable/telco incumbents.

But I would take it a step further:  why not set aside spectrum for NONPROFIT business models -- like ours -- so that rural and low-incomes areas -- which are often not profitable -- can also be served? 

We once encouraged nonprofit rural electric and telephone cooperatives to serve areas neglected by private, for-profit utilities.  Why not do the same for broadband?  And for radio and TV, where the advertising-driven, for-profit model has led to the virtual collapse of journalism -- as the Framers envisioned journalism -- at both the local and national levels?

Our model in Asheville, N.C. -- the Mountain Area Information Network (MAIN) http://www.main.nc.u... -- uses the  ISP revenue to support local, independent media, like our LPFM radio station, where 36 locally-produced shows are broadcast each week through the work of more than 80 volunteers http://www.wpvm.org.

As for the 700 MHz spectrum, I have asked reps for the various 900 MHz wireless hardware vendors (there's only a handful, with Motorola being the major) about their plans for 700 MHz.  It's not even on their radar screens!  This is further evidence of how this auction has been kept from public scrutiny.  My guess is that even manufacturers like Motorola assumed that the 700 MHz spectrum would be locked up by Verizon, AT&T et al, and warehoused for future proprietary use. 

Many thanks to Sen. Durbin and his staff for helping to shine the light of public debate on this major civil rights issue! 

Live Blog Tonight on Public Airwaves/Infrastructure | 93 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox