I suppose it was inevitable. Let Google enter the policy arena and suddenly that's all anyone will ever think about. Never mind that Media Access Project and New America Foundation first participated in this policy exercise back in the spectrum task force days in 2002, that we mobilized around this issue (and I blogged on it) back in 2004 before Google or Microsoft showed up, or that New America Foundation has published some ungodly amount of content on this well before Google even had a wireless policy. No, like last summer and the 700 MHz auction, or the 2006 Net Neutrality fight, it is all about the Great Google Overlords blah blah blah. Because everyone knows that no one in Washington really cares about the public interest groups and its all about refereeing industry food fights.

I should note that the utter refusal of the trade press (and others who should know better) leads them to consistently screw up on where the Commission actually goes. Flashback to last November, and I defy you to find any oh-so wise insider with the cynicism that passes for wisdom these days who thought for a moment that a Kevin Martin-led FCC would even consider our complaint about Comcast blocking BitTorrent. When Martin defied expectation and put it out on notice, no one thought we had a chance of getting an actual judgment in our favor. And of course, when we did win, it didn't disprove anything, since it was either all the work of the Great Google Overlords or a clever reverse fake by Martin to screw Net Neutrality.

I'd let it go as excellent political cover (since God knows most industry lobbyists make the same mistake) and a reason why folks should read my blog to get some balance, but the pernicious myth that no one in Washington cares about anything but major corporate players is one of those things that becomes self-fulfilling prophecy when regular citizens buy into it. The fact is that decisionmakers and policy folks are all over the map here in DC. You will find people who are wholly owned subsidiaries, people who are driven exclusively by ideology and — surprising to many — a large number of folks in both parties trying to do what they think is the right thing given all the information they have and what they think is right. I class all five FCC Commissioners, even the ones with whom I most frequently disagree, as being in this category.

Does it matter that Google is involved? Of course. Not only is it a question of available lobbying resources, but also a question of whether anyone is likely to take advantage of the rule change. That's not always determinative, but it certainly helps. As the Frontline debacle shows, FCC Commissioners need to worry about what happens if they guess wrong, while still finding the courage to try new things when required. Seeing a company like Google come gives a certain amount of reassurance and makes it a lot easier for commissioners to beleive us public interest folks when we say “yes, open the white spaces to unlicensed and it will get used.”

But for Om Malik over at Giga Om and other well informed press folks to make their judgments about the white spaces based on Google's involvement or non-involvement is as ridiculous as the worshippers of the Gods of the Marketplace deciding based on ideology without regard to actual evidence. Google's financial interests are obvious, their interest here long standing, and their latest outreach effort no more or less noxious than those of any other company. In this case, they have the advantage of showcasing organizations that came on the scene (like MAP and NAF) long before they did.

As I have said before and will say many times again, citizen's movements must be citizen driven. That is their strength, and why so many pundits and lobbyists who mistake lazy cynicism for experience and wisdom seem utterly incapable of understanding. But as long we believe it we will continue to change the world — and reporters like Malik will continue to be smugly wrong about what to expect.

Stay tuned . . . .

Today's NYT has this op ed on Obama's use of text messaging to announce his VP pick. It provides a nice reminder about the importance of the pending Petition by PK and others on text messaging. Filed after Verizon denied NARAL a short code but reversed itself within 24 hours the mobile texting petition often gets bundled with the Comcast complaint as if they were essentially two examples of the same thing. They aren't. The Comcast complaint asked the FCC to follow through on its previous commitment to prevent broadband providers from blocking or degrading content or applications. For all the (well deserved) hoopla around the decision, it was at heart, as Commissioner Tate described, “a normal enforcement proceeding, regarding a particular complaint within the confines of the specific circumstances presented.”

The Petition for Declaratory Ruling on mobile text messaging and short codes is not a complaint (although it is an adjudication). It does not seek to punish Verizon as a bad actor, and it only refers to the NARAL incident as an illustration of why the Commission needs to act. Rather, we ask the Commission to decide — for the first time — whether mobile text messaging is a Title II telecommunications service, like the underlying phone number and voice service. If the Commission decides that it is a actually a Title I enhanced service (like the internet access you can buy separately), we ask the FCC to impose rules that would prevent wireless carriers from denying a short code to someone or from messing with anyone's text messaging.

Not that Verizon or any other provider would be so foolish as to deny the Obama or McCain campaigns short codes or block their text messages. I'm not even worried about independent candidates like Barr and Nader. No, I'm worried about us ordinary schlubs, or even unpopular folks who can't count on getting a front page story on the NYT if something happens but still deserve the right to organize and spread their message to willing listeners.

More below . . . . [Read More!]

One may logically ask, if I am right about the wireless microphones being such a big problem for public safety, why haven't the public safety folks complained to the FCC about this?

Answer: turns out they have. But, the public safety folks being quiet and unassuming, failed to make themselves heard.

Allow me to change that. The National Public Safety Telecommunications Council, a federation of public safety associations, sent a letter to Chairman Martin asking that the FCC address the problem of wireless microphones back on June 30, 2008. i.e., about two weeks before I filed. While I wish I could claim that it was the NPSTC letter that inspired me, I had no idea it was out there until today. My conversations with the public safety guys were all informal and off the record. Still, as always when folks remind me I'm not an engineer (or an economist, or technologist, or any of the other topics on which I chose to share my humble layperson's opinion), I am rather pleased to find a bunch of actual engineers that agree with me.

Mind you, the NPSTC letter asks the FCC to go a heck of a lot further than I have. NPSTC wants wireless microphones kicked out of the entire 700 MHz band. I, OTOH, think lots of folks can productively use the broadcast white spaces. Still, I do feel compelled to point out that wireless microphones do not have nearly the level of intelligence/sophistication being discussed for interference avoidance for the white spaces devices at issue in 04-186. Perhaps we should require wireless microphones to rely on sensing as well, or require that they consult an online database for possible new users in the band, or require them to acknowledge some sort of “permissive beacon.” Perhaps public safety entities like NPSTC should administer the database or beacon, and we should require wireless microphone users to pay for these services.

I mean, after all, we wouldn't want to let these devices run around loose, would we? Think of the terrible interference that might cause. Unless these devices can meet the same rigorous standards that Shure and others seek to impose on unlicensed devices in 04-186, I don't see how we can ask NPSTC to abide by circumstances that they feel place our public safety at risk.

Stay tuned . . . .

As regular readers will know, among my many wireless fixations are the use of the broadcast white spaces and the 700 MHz auction. So what happens when I get to combine the two together?

Answer: A 50 page complaint and Petition for Rulemaking, another 175 pages of evidence that Shure and other manufacturers have been marketing wireless microphones in violation of FCC rules, then using the victims of this deceptive marketing scam as “human shields” in the white spaces debate, and a possible road map toward solving the potential for massive interference with new public safety and wireless services operating on the returned UHF bands. As a side benefit, it also provides a route to authorization for the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of illegal wireless microphones, finds a use for that leftover 5 MHZ band in the AWS-2/AWS-3 proceeding (waste not want not), and potentially changes the debate in the white spaces fight by getting the goddamn fact that the overwhelming majority of wireless microphones are (at the moment) used illegally out in the open so people can have a rational discussion about interference protection.

Oh yeah, and it will require the wireless microphone manufacturers to clean up the mess by exchanging the old, unauthorized equipment for new equipment that doesn't work on Channels 52-69. I love a plan that only punishes the guilty rather than letting the wireless microphone guys reap yet another windfall by requiring the unauthorized users to pay for their own equipment replacement.

And what was Shure's response to the complaint? According to the Associated Press, Shure did not deny breaking the law. Instead, they said: “today's uses of wireless microphones provide a valuable and irreplaceable public good, regardless of the licensing scheme.”

Or, in other words, “yeah, we broke the law — but it doesn't matter because we will use Broadway and churches as human shields if you try to go after us” (insert international gesture of respect performed with raised middle finger at FCC).

You can see the press release here, and get copies of our complaint/Petition here. (Links to the Exhibits are on the press page.) You can see a bit more analysis from yr hmbl obdn't below.... [Read More!]

Well, I keep saying I will do the big posting on AWS-3/M2Z, and keep not getting to it. So I will just drop a short note for the fellow FCC policy junkies who follow this stuff closely. You can find background on the AWS-3/M2Z business here, here, and here.

The FCC extended the filing deadline on the proposal released June 20 to reapportion spectrum between the AWS-2 band and the AWS-3 band (as well as mandatory content filtering). Comments were originally due on a tight deadline (today). This extends things out to a full 30 days for comments and 14 days for reply, so the new dates are July 25 and August 11. That's less than what the wireless carriers wanted, and it explicitly rejects the request for the FCC to do its own testing. In fact, the whole tenor of the Order provides a rich field for us FCC-ologists to start gazing in tea dregs and rummaging through pigeon entrails.

More below . . .

[Read More!]

Today, the FCC will most likely dismiss the the Skype Petition. I've already written why I think this is a phenomenally bad idea and, while I continue to respect Kevin Martin and understand why he is doing this, he is totally wrong here. Once again, those worried about “unintended consequences,” “first do no harm,” etc., etc. fail to appreciate that a refusal to take action and granting permission to carriers to control the sorts of devices, applications and therefore what innovation and what free speech, go on over their networks is as much an action as granting the Skype Petition. There is no evading responsibility or avoiding unforseen consequences.

Which brings me to the Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Rural Carriers Association (RCA) to prevent exclusive deals on equipment, aka “Skype Lite.” Mind you, the rural carriers opposed the Skype Petition as much as any other carrier, arguing that it would be awful for their limited capacity rural networks if they could not control what equipment attached to their networks and what applications ran on that equipment. Nevertheless, they too are unsatisified in a world where market size and raw capitalism dominate. So, without ever once raising the same arguments as Skype or referencing the Commission's information policy statement, the rural carriers argue for what amounts to the same relief as Skype, only tailored differently. Rather than regulate all carriers to require open networks, they ask the Commission to limit the market power of the major carriers by prohibitting exclusives. Otherwise, they argu, rural America will never know the joy of the iPhone or any other significant innovation — since the major carriers will tie up the most valuable applications and equipment in exclusive deals.

Nor are the rural carriers alone in finding the world according to Coase and Friedman less than they desire. The Commission has before it a good handful of petitions from carriers asking for mandatory roaming reform, access charge reform, and other limits on the ability of the dominant, vertically integrated providers from exercising their market power. Of course, all of these carriers asking for regulatory intervention are simultaneously celebrating the dismissal of the Skype Petition, piously telling Skype and the rest of the non-carrier industry that they are a bunch of parasites and that if they want access to a network they need to get their own licenses and build one.

I do not write to underscore the hypocrisy of these contradictory positions. That would be a waste of bits. Companies make whatever arguments they need to make in order to survive and thrive. No, my warning to the rural carriers and the rest of the Skype-lite crowd is simply one of practicality. You cannot win your request for special regulation while simultaneously singing the praises of the fiercely competitive broadband market and arguing that there is no place for regulation in this great free market success story. By contrast, if you simply admit that the industry now suffers from excessive concentration and the cure for this requires a comprehensive approach, you will find yourselves much more likely to prevail.

Martin indicated that he would dismiss the Skype Petition “without prejudice,” meaning that Skype or others will be free to try again — say, in six months or so when the FCC changes hands. In the mean time, I suggest the rural carriers and the other industry players anxious for regulatory relief — whether in the form of spectrum caps in auctions, mandatory roaming, or access charge reform — rethink their strategy.

Or, to put it another way, “regulation, it's not just for developers and other parasites any more.”

Stay tuned . . . .

There are an endless number of conferences out there, many of them quite good. But there is one conference I never skip if I can possibly make it — the International Summit For Community Wireless.

Why? You won't find billion dollar CEOs or announcements of major product releases or huge deals. This year, owing to its location in Washington D.C., there will be some very good speakers (such as FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein — one of the great friends of community wireless at the Commission). And I and fellow Washington public interest conspirators will be hatching our plots for the new Administration. But that's not why this is, in my opinion, the most important conference I attend.

This conference is the biggest collection of people I know who do things — and talk about them without worrying about non-disclosure agreements. These are the folks providing wireless connectivity in urban neighborhoods were folks can't afford DSL; or who have figured out how to store, share and tag local content on wifi network in a safe manner that transforms a hot spot from an access point to the internet to a source of rich local media. It's where I can hear about the innovations in mesh or deployment that are taking place on a daily basis as people deploy systems and play with equipment and code. It's where I learned about how a city in Chile is improving the efficiency of city services because they asked local people “what is your biggest problem that we can solve with a wifi network” and the answer was “empty the garbage dumpsters when they get full.” It's a place to find out how people are changing lives with unlicensed wireless technologies, and coordinating better how to get that story told.

For me, it gives meaning to my work. Because what I do doesn't mean jack unless it actually changes people's lives. (You can see the speech I gave at the second Summit on Community Wireless here, and here the speech I gave last year here (feel free to skip the intro by Sascha, which contains reference to things that never happened and I was somewhere else at the time so it could not have been me anyway.) But for everyone else, whether you are a policy wonk who wants to see how spectrum policy changes people's lives, or a technogeek looking for cool toys, or a venture capitalist scouting for the next Big Thing to come out of the weeds, this is the place to be.

Fourth International Summit on Community Wireless Networking
May 28-30
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
1200 New York Ave NW
Washington, DC 20005

Stay tuned . . . .

“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”

--Obligatory Cliche Neitsche Quote

When last we left Sprint, the wily temptress of the airwaves, she was languorously sighing while apparently choosing between her old suitors (refugees from Spectrum Co. Comcast, Time Warner, and Brighthouse) and her new suitors (Google and Intel). Now, according to this announcement, the ever outre and winsome Sprint has decided it is too much trouble to choose and that — like some French comedy — they will live happily ever after in some carefree, open spectrum menage a cinq. Google, as has become its want, explains on its blog how this signals a new era in which all Americans will enjoy a third wireless pipe, open applications, and — no doubt — greater independence from foreign oil.

Well I hope so. But after seeing Google break my poor little heart in the 700 MHz auction after I was so utterly convinced they would bid to win, I am very definitely reserving judgment here. Because while I keep hoping that this is all part of Google acting to alter the wireless world by making it more open, I cannot overlook the possibility that this is the world of giant corporate incumbents altering Google to be less of a threat. So even though Google is saying all the right things, I'm going to wait to see the FCC applications before I start jumping up and down for joy and declaring this a huge victory. Because electronic press releases mean squat compared to whether the applications for the new “Clearwire” entity contain provisions that provide the same level of openness as the C Block Conditions or the Skype Petition.

More below . . . . [Read More!]

So I've been following up more since initial post yesterday. As a general matter, I recommend interested readers start with this piece from the FDA's website, followed by the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) FAQ on wireless medical telemetry devices and the digital transition. OET does not see this as likely to cause a big deal because there's plenty of empty “white spaces” out there after the digital transition and users can adjust their devices as digital televisions come online.

Well, I hope they are right about that, although I'd feel a lot better if someone were responsible for actually keeping track of this and making sure that users get informed. Under the rules, there are notification requirements for when a station goes live with its digital signal so hospitals can make changes. That works as long as folks are paying attention, of course. In any event, in case OET is looking for more work (or someone on the Hill wants to step up), I would suggest that it would be awfully nice to know what the state of the industry is. But I suspect the right place to do that is really the FDA not the FCC, or perhaps the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

But there is a broader lesson here. As with wireless microphones and a host of other specific low power applications, the real problem is not capacity. The problem is that we have a legacy system that slices spectrum uses into these discrete little services rather than allowing general low power unlicensed use and using cognitive radios to avoid interference.

Hospitals provide a particularly useful environment for smart devices, because they have so many noisy devices, sensitive devices, and such an expanding need for wireless devices for medical telemetry. Imagine a device that works equally well in all locations of the hospital without putting other systems at risk because it senses and adjusts for its radio frequency environment in a real-time basis. If another doctor starts up a device in a neighboring bed that is noise generator, the device monitoring my patient will move to a clear frequency. Devices and systems could even be tagged for priority, so that a mobile monitor attached to a patient knows that it must give the “right of way” to the cardiac ward systems if they come into conflict.

But more specifically here, there is nothing that existing wireless medical telemetry devices authorized in the band do that could not be replicated more flexibly and at lower cost by authorizing generic low-power white spaces devices. This is essentially the same problem as with wireless microphones. If wireless microphones had never received a special dispensation to function in the broadcast white spaces as a licensed ancillary service, you could replicate these systems with unlicensed white spaces devices. But, like the QWERTY typewriter, they are an embedded technology. And they have a constituency that, quite logically, resists change and argues that it plays an important role that generic devices could not replicate.

We thus have the irony of everybody agreeing there is “plenty of white space” for existing secondary users like wireless microphones and medical telemetry, but supposedly no room for the next generation of devices that could do the job of both technologies and bring us a host of other applications besides. We could cure this with more powerful cognitive radios, but the same natural conservatism by incumbents against any intrusion in “their” spectrum makes any movement in that direction politically difficult (as demonstrated by the FCC terminating two promising proceedings last year).

We therefore have the classic political and collective action result of fixing the wrong problem, at least from a public policy perspective. Rather than expanding wireless use generally, we make the new, more useful generic technology subordinate to the existing stakeholders. It is rather like what would have happened if harness makers and farriers had been able to demand that automobiles must protect their industries before being allowed to share the road with the horse and buggy.

Hardly a new problem or an original observation, I recognize. This has been the lament of spectrum reformers since five minutes after the first licenses were issued and the rest of us got cut off. Still, I keep hoping that this time around we'll manage to get the right result and not let the embedded old technology trump the next generation of users.

Stay tuned . . . .

CNET has this story about how “Hospital Techies” (notably medical monitor manufacturer GE) are worried that white spaces devices will mess up their medical systems.

Bluntly, “hospital techies” have bigger problems. As the CNET article observes, but lightly passes over, some unknown number of hospitals are using legacy medical monitoring equipment that will stop working after the digital transition. So while the odds of white spaces devices (WSDs) interfering with actual medical equipment on the approved set aside, Channel 37, approaches zero, and WSD interference with legacy equipment is equally unlikely, we may face a total meltdown in poor hospitals of medical monitoring equipment.

Rather than waste time on white spaces, I would say manufacturers like GE Healthcare need to start working with the FCC (and Congress) to engage in a massive education and outreach effort equal to what the FCC has done with the NAB and retailers to educate the public. That means stop selling any legacy equipment, require manufacturers to notify customers that have legacy equipment that it may stop working, and find out how many hospitals are likely to lose medical monitoring equipment after the DTV transition happens. A little funding from Congress to help poor hospitals that can't afford to upgrade wouldn't hurt either.

But worrying about white spaces is like worrying about whether a candle will blow over when a brush fire is bearing down you. Unless folks wake up to the danger, we may get seriously burned.

More analysis below . . . [Read More!]