Free Newsletter
Are Kevin Martin's wireless broadband dreams in peril?
Free newsletter via e-mail
Tools
In the coming months, the FCC has some decisions to make that will impact the future of wireless broadband--a subject that is near and dear to Chairman Kevin Martin's heart as he'd like to see wireless broadband bridge connectivity for the country's have-nots.
Next month, the commission is expected to take up the growing debate over white-space spectrum, that unused TV spectrum that advocates such as Google and Microsoft want used on an unlicensed basis for super-WiFi services. Martin likes the idea, but the FCC faces heavy lobbying pressure from the National Association of Broadcasters and wireless microphone users such as the NFL that fear interference. Recently completed field tests haven't revealed any clear answers over the interference debate.
The FCC also is looking to auction spectrum in the AWS-3 band that would require the licensee to dedicate 25 percent of its network capacity to free broadband service, install a network-based Internet filtering system to block pornography and allow open access to third-party devices and applications. Again, the commission is facing some stiff opposition to the plan from operators such as T-Mobile that worry about interference with the AWS-1 band and Republicans who think crafting such rules would create another 700 MHz D-block debacle.
And the commission is considering the New Clearwire deal, which involves Sprint pooling its WiMAX assets with Clearwire with the help of millions from Intel, Google and cable operators. That plan is also coming under fire from AT&T, which is accusing the stakeholders of providing inconsistent details on how much usable spectrum the new entity will have and reiterated that it wants the FCC to scrutinize the deal like it would other carrier deals.
The question is, can the FCC effectively tackle these decisions before a new administration and Congress comes onto the scene in 2009? The commission is supposed to rule on the New Clearwire deal before the end of the year, but Martin has said the auction will probably not move forward this year because of the intense controversy over the plan. The white-space controversy seems far from resolved as there doesn't seem to be a clear answer over whether these devices cause interference or not. So it's unlikely the commission will come to a consensus on that before the end of the year.
What does that mean for the wireless broadband dream? Will it be stuck in limbo? Some of the nation's operators that don't want to see new competition, appear to be making sure that they continue to cloud the issues until 2009, when these initiatives will perhaps be taken up by a new FCC. Will Martin's dreams be for naught? --Lynnette
Comments
Posted by a sound engineer | August 18, 2008 - 2:51pm
The article glosses over the wireless microphone issue. It makes it seem like this is only a problem for the NFL... NOT. Wireless microphones are everywhere... boardrooms, churches, schools, professional theater, concerts, news gathering, sports (how are you able to hear the official call of a play during a football game? a wireless microphone!), motion picture, etc. There are millions of these devices out there.
The NFL is a good example simply because their production situation demands hundreds of valid channels.
I fear that this won't really be understood until some politico wants a wire-free microphone and can't get it... because the spectrum space for these devices has been sold off to the highest bidder. By then, it will be too late.
Posted by Robert Syputa | August 19, 2008 - 2:07am
Regulation of spectrum is often controversial because so much of the character of competition and future revenue depends on it.
Not all spectrum is 'created equal': AT&T is certainly within their rights to protest the formation of the 'new' Clearwire. But regardless of details about how much spectrum the combined companies have, the fact remains that this is comprised of spectrum that has gone mostly unused. It has only become practical to exploit this spectrum with the development of MIMO-AAS-OFDMA technologies that mitigate multi-channel interference, namely WiMAX and future LTE systems. This affirmatively answers a basic question of whether allowing the deal to go through is anti-competitive or pro-competitive and, therefore, in the public interest.
Mobile and broadband operators have consolidated to the extent that it takes a higher threshold of spectrum and capital to launch a competitive offering. The FCC has made attempts to increase competition. Since the few remaining spectra that have come to auction over the past several years have largely been licensed by incumbents, arguments against making use of 'broadband spectrum' by the new operator have almost no chance of derailing the deal.
The white spaces spectrum issue is made more complex by conflicting incumbent use. But it makes sense for the FCC to allow this with protections. The future promise of cognitive/adaptive radio technologies go far beyond he current white spaces debate. This should be allowed despite the mess it may cause initially. The long term potential for evolution of cognitive/adaptive radio technologies is to unlock more of the 90% unused 'duty cycle' spectrum. Methods have been proposed by Google and others to prevent interference at sports venues, convention centers and other places wireless microphones are used. Blocking emergence of new technology while still in its relaive infancy is a denial of progress.
Comments (2) | Post a comment