Broadband & Community Broadband: Policy Papers

U.S. vs. Japan: Residential Internet Service Provision Pricing

OTI — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:53:00 -0400

The following chart lists the price, download and upload speeds of residential Internet services in the U.S. and Japan.

The Rise of the Intranet Era

Wireless Future — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:55:00 -0500

No starter pistol announces the beginning of a new technological era.^[1] There are no cannon blasts or tower bells ringing forth the end of the old and dawn of the new.

Building a 21st Century Broadband Superhighway

Wireless Future — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:40:00 -0500

Success Depends on Public Investment and Civic Engagement

Wireless Future — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 11:36:00 -0500

As the saying goes: Reports of the death of municipal wireless are greatly exaggerated. Most mainstream media simply got it wrong. Most municipal wireless networks across the United States didn't take a tumble over the past year. Rather, in high-profile cities where deals fell apart - including Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco and Houston - what failed were exclusive commercial franchise forays. Local governments were not going to finance, own or operate their respective networks. These weren't municipal networks at all.

Homes With Tails

Wireless Future — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:07:00 -0500

America’s communications infrastructure is stuck at a copper wall. For the vast majority of homes, copper wires remain the principal means of getting broadband services. The deployment of fiber optic connections to the home would enable exponentially faster connections, and few dispute that upgrading to more robust infrastructure is essential to America’s economic growth. However, the costs of such an upgrade are daunting for private sector firms and even for governments. These facts add up to a public policy challenge.

Rural Broadband and the TV White Space

Wireless Future — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:57:00 -0400

In 2004, the FCC initiated a proceeding to determine rules to allow the unlicensed operation of wireless communication devices in unused television band spectrum between channels 2 and 51. These vacant and unassigned television channels, known as the TV “white spaces,” would help make affordable wireless broadband in rural America a reality.

Wireless Pittsburgh

Wireless Future — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:13:00 -0500

Abstract

Many cities are considering the deployment of a wireless metropolitan-area network (WiMAN) based on Wi-Fi technology. Some hope to find the “right” WiMAN policy, but in reality, different policies are appropriate for different cities. City leaders must often balance competing goals, including the desire to maximize the area in which wireless services will be available, to maximize competition among providers, to minimize subsidies from government agencies and non-profit organizations, and to ensure financial sustainability. This paper investigates the extent to which these goals can be met with four basic models: (1) a single citywide monopoly WiMAN provider; (2) facilities-based competition from multiple citywide WiMAN providers; (3) a citywide WiMAN offering wholesale services to competing retail service providers; (4) open competition where multiple providers are free to serve only the more profitable neighborhoods. We estimate costs for constructing and operating a WiMAN in Pittsburgh using a sample architecture.

We develop a regression model to roughly predict subscription rates and revenues based on city demographics, and apply that model to Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Minneapolis. Using these rough estimates, we analyze the extent to which competition can be sustained and service can be provided citywide under different models, and with different forms of intervention, such as providing one-time or annual subsidies (from government or non-profit foundations), guaranteeing that city government will be a large customer, advertising wireless services, and facilitating access to locations that are suitable for antenna placement.

For Pittsburgh, we conclude that citywide facilities-based competition is not financially sustainable. Citywide monopoly operation and citywide competition at the retail level are almost equally viable financially, and both appear sustainable, but financial failure is well within our margin of error. Moreover, we show that retail competition can only survive if the City has leverage to prevent the monopoly wholesaler from raising prices to the level that maximizes the wholesaler’s profit, as this will end competition. In addition, the City or a powerful third party must provide some form of inducement such as becoming an anchor customer to motivate providers to serve all parts of the city. Otherwise, commercial providers maximize profit by focusing on high-income neighborhoods, leaving much of the city unserved. Finally, we argue that substantial involvement from local government is helpful in some cities but not others. Each city must carefully consider local needs and resources, and state legislatures should refrain from interference.

For the full working paper, please see the attached PDF below.

Related link: The Future of Municipal Wireless

The Art of Spectrum Lobbying

Wireless Future — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:36:00 -0400

Introduction

In the late 1980s, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) conducted a series of lotteries to allocate electromagnetic spectrum (popularly known as the “public airwaves”) for mobile telephone service. More than 320,000 lottery tickets were acquired by spectrum speculators, including dentists, lawyers, accountants, and anyone else willing to devote the time and hire the legal talent necessary to fill out the complicated form to acquire a lottery ticket. Many of the lottery tickets were purchased as part of partnerships, whose members would collectively enter lottery tickets for hundreds of different licenses. For example, in December 1989, the FCC selected the winning ticket for a lottery for one such license on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The winning ticket holder then sold the ticket ten months later for $41.5 million. Former Governor Mark Warner, a U.S. Senate staffer before the lottery, was among the politically savvy who made millions by acquiring and flipping the licenses granted in the lottery.

The result was widespread outrage because the public could readily perceive that billions of dollars of public assets had been given away to private interests—well-connected, wealthy Americans—without public compensation. As the chairman of the FCC at the time characterized the lottery winners, “They receive a windfall and the public gets no payment.” This outrage led to legislation in 1993 to auction future FCC licenses. Congressional leaders publicly promised that, except for a few services—notably public safety and terrestrial broadcasting—the government would henceforth grant exclusive rights to use spectrum only in return for monetary compensation.

This has not come to pass. According to calculations presented in this paper, since 1993, the government has given to private interests as much as $480 billion in spectrum usage rights without public compensation. That comes to more than 90 percent of the value of spectrum usage rights it has assigned from 1993 through the present.

In addition, the government has warehoused as much as $155 billion of spectrum usage rights in guard bands. The warehousing in itself is not a giveaway to private interests. But, for reasons we shall see, it may position incumbent licensees to acquire the warehoused spectrum without public compensation. Thus, the act of guard band warehousing may be viewed as part of a multi step process that leads to giveaways just like winning a presidential primary election is necessary to winning the presidential general election. For example, since 1997 TV broadcasters have used the digital transition to acquire more than $6 billion worth of guard band spectrum by winning rights to transmit programming across a larger geographic area.

How did this happen? How could the government give away so much in public assets to private interests without public and congressional outrage? A large part of the answer is that the government no longer gives away spectrum usage rights in highly visible ways such as spectrum lotteries. Instead, incumbent licensees and spectrum speculators have perfected strategies that enable them to acquire free spectrum rights below the public radar. Until public policies are implemented to render those low visibility lobbying strategies ineffective—so that spectrum giveaways are once again as visible as they were in the days of spectrum lotteries—spectrum giveaways to private entities will persist. (Of course, when the FCC or Congress grants spectrum to public entities or for unlicensed use, no giveaway in this sense is involved because the public retains full rights to its airwaves.)

This paper deals with what might be considered the third rail of spectrum policy: the rotten, special interest politics that has driven lawmakers to give away the public’s airwaves to private interests without public compensation. In the vast stream of government reports seeking to reform spectrum policy since 1993, one looks in vain for more than a token acknowledgement, let alone a serious and sustained discussion, of this giveaway. Like other politically embarrassing issues, it is an issue that congressional leaders and their proxies—the FCC, GAO, CBO, NTIA, and others—would prefer not to talk about. This, of course, suits the beneficiaries of the giveaway and their army of lobbyists and analysts just fine. For that very reason alone, however, it is an issue that desperately needs a public airing.

This paper is divided into three sections: Part I provides an estimate of the value of the government’s spectrum rights giveaway since 1993, Part II provides a description of the strategies spectrum lobbyists have used to acquire such rights, and Part III provides policy recommendations to ensure that spectrum rights giveaways (which are closely linked to warehousing guard band spectrum) come to an end.

To view the full paper, open the PDF file linked below. The working paper version, which was published in July, is also attached.

Spectrum Policy for the Emerging Ultrabroadband World

Wireless Future — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:22:00 -0400

Imagine a world with finite spectrum but infinite demand for wireless bandwidth. In such a world, which we shall call the ?wireless ultrabroadband world, what would the wireless telecommunications architecture look like? And what type of property rights regime would accompany it?

No telecommunications architecture following known laws of nature could provide infinite wireless bandwidth. But this paper argues that the architecture that would get closest would be one with very short wireless end user links attached to a wired backbone. It further argues that in such a world the most efficient property rights regime for spectrum management would be one that bundles rights to use spectrum with rights of possession to tangible property.

Contrast this world to the wireless narrowband world in which we currently live in, where demand for wireless bandwidth is relatively modest, wireless links correspondingly large, and the most efficient property rights regime for spectrum management is predominantly one that unbundles spectrum and tangible property rights.

The unbundled property rights regime corresponds to the FCC’s current system of licensing spectrumin in which licenses to use spectrum are granted without consideration of tangible property rights. The bundled property rights regime parallels much of the practice--but not the theory--of the FCC’s current system of unlicensed spectrum.

This paper is divided into three parts:

1) Bundled versus Unbundled Property Rights
2) Wireless Links in an Ultrabroadband Network
3) Public Policy Recommendations

To view the full paper, see the PDF document linked below. This paper was adapted as a presentation given at the “Ultrabroadband Networks and the Personal Media Cloud" conference, hosted by Columbia University's Institute for Tele-Information.

Wholesale Open Access and Anonymous Bidding

Wireless Future — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 06:55:00 -0400

In the coming weeks, the FCC will set the bidding and service rules for the auction of the 700MHz spectrum freed up by the DTV transition—“beachfront” airwaves ideal for the provision of high-speed wireless broadband services. This last big sale of prime spectrum is expected to raise $10 to $20 billion in federal revenue.

Spectrum Auction Breakdown

Wireless Future — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:29:00 -0400

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) spectrum auctions can seem arcane and technical, but in fact, auctions for exclusive licenses to use the public airwaves determine the future of American telecommunications. FCC auctions shape the competitive structure of markets and, ultimately, who controls entire industries—from broadcasting, to telephony, to wireless broadband services—that are increasingly central to U.S. productivity growth, consumer welfare, and global competitiveness.

Wireless Net Neutrality: Cellular Carterfone and Consumer Choice in Mobile Broadband

Wireless Future — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:00:00 -0500

Issue Update (2-21-2007): VoIP provider Skype has filed a petition with the FCC to ensure that Carterfone rules apply to commercial wireless networks, citing Tim Wu's paper on Wireless Net Neutrality.

Below is an Executive Summary. The full paper is linked below, in PDF format.

Over the next decade, regulators will spend increasing time on the conflicts between the private interests of the wireless industry and the public’s interest in the best uses of its spectrum. This report examines the practices of the wireless industry with an eye toward understanding their influence on innovation and consumer welfare.

In many respects, the mobile wireless market is and remains a wonder. Thanks to both policy and technological innovations, devices that were science fiction thirty years ago are now widely available. Over the last decade, wireless mobile has been an “infant industry,” attempting to achieve economies of scale. That period is over: today, in the United States, there are over 200 million mobile subscribers, and mobile revenues are over $100 billion. As the industry and platform mature, the wireless industry warrants a new look.

This report finds a mixed picture. The wireless industry, over the last decade, has succeeded in bringing wireless telephony at competitive prices to the American public. Yet at the same time, we also find the wireless carriers aggressively controlling product design and innovation in the equipment and application markets, to the detriment of consumers. In the wired world, their policies would, in some cases, be considered simply misguided, and in other cases be considered outrageous and perhaps illegal.

Four areas warrant particular attention:

1. Network Attachments – Carriers exercise excessive control over what devices may be used on the public’s wireless spectrum. The carriers place strong controls over “foreign attachments,” like the AT&T of the 1950s. The FCC’s Carterfone rules, which allow consumers to attach devices of their choice to the wired telephone networks, do not apply to wireless networks. These controls continue to affect the innovation and development of new devices and applications for wireless networks.

2. Product Design and Feature Crippling – By controlling entry, carriers are in a position to exercise strong control over the design of mobile equipment. They have used that power to force equipment developers to omit or cripple many consumer-friendly features. Carriers have also forced manufacturers to include technologies, like “walled garden” Internet access, that neither equipment developers nor consumers want. Finally, through under-disclosed “phone-locking,” the U.S. carriers disable the ability of phones to work on more than one network. A list of features that carriers have blocked, crippled, modified or made difficult to use, at one time or another include:

• Call timers on telephones
• Wi-Fi technology
• Bluetooth technology
• GPS Services
• Advanced SMS services
• Internet Browsers
• Easy Photo file transfer capabilities
• Easy Sound file transfer capabilities
• Email clients
• SIM Card Mobility

3. Discriminatory Broadband Services – In recent years, under the banner of “3G” services, carriers have begun to offer wireless broadband services that compete with Wi-Fi services and may compete with cable and DSL broadband services. However, the services are offered pursuant to undisclosed bandwidth limits and usage restrictions that violate basic network neutrality rules.

Most striking is Verizon Wireless, which prominently advertises “unlimited” data services. However, it and other carriers offer broadband service pursuant both to bandwidth limits, and to contractual limits that bar routine uses of the Internet, including downloading music from legitimate sites like iTunes, use of Voice over IP, and use of sites like YouTube.

4. Application Stall – Mobile application development is by nature technically challenging. However, the carriers have not helped in fostering a robust applications market. In fact, they have imposed excessive burdens and conditions on application entry in the wireless application market, stalling what might otherwise be a powerful input into the U.S. economy. In the words of one developer, “there is really no way to write applications for these things.” The mobile application environment is today, in the words of one developer, “a tarpit of misery, pain and destruction.”

Most of the carriers exhibit similar practices in the areas discussed in this paper. However, in each area, there are variations between the four largest carriers: AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint-Nextel, and T-Mobile. Speaking generally, Verizon Wireless and AT&T have the most restrictive policies; Sprint is slightly less restrictive. The fourth and smallest competitor, T-Mobile, tends to be the least restrictive on consumers and application developers. The reliance on a fourth competitor for serious variation in industry practice must be kept in mind when considering any future consolidation.

The report makes four major recommendations:

1. Cellphone Carterfone – The basic and highly successful Carterfone rules in the wired world allow any consumer to attach any safe device to his or her phone line through a standardized jack. The same rule for wireless networks would liberate device innovation in the wireless world, stimulate the development of new applications and free equipment designers to make the best phones possible.

2. Basic Network Neutrality Rules – Wireless carriers should be subject to the same core network neutrality principles under which the cable and DSL industries currently operate. Consumers have the basic right to use the applications of their choice and view the content of their choice. Wireless carriers who offer broadband services should respect the same basic freedoms. Carriers can tier or meter pricing for bandwidth without blocking or degrading consumer choice.

3. Disclosure – Consumer disclosure is a major problem in the wireless world. In addition to the disclosure of areas lacking coverage and rate-plan information, carriers should disclose—fully, prominently, and in plain English—any limits placed on devices, limits on bandwidth usage, or if devices are locked to a single network.

4. Standardize Application Platforms – The industry should re-evaluate its “walled garden” approach to application development, and work together to create clear and unified standards for developers. Application development for mobile devices is stalled, and it is in the carriers’ own interest to try and improve the development environment.

To view the entire paper, please see the PDF document linked below.

Quantifying the Impact of Unlicensed Devices on Digital TV Receivers

Wireless Future — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:30:00 -0500

ABSTRACT

This report presents the preliminary results from a feasibility study regarding the operation of secondary spectrum users within unused television spectrum. It has been hypothesized that television spectrum is underutilized, making it a candidate for dynamic spectrum access. The feasibility of using this spectrum for enabling secondary transmissions is assessed in this work, with a focus on the possibility of unlicensed devices interfering with digital TV reception. Specifically, we investigate the critical operating parameters for developing the technical rules for device operation in bands adjacent to a digital television transmission.

Can Cognitive Radio Operating in the TV White Spaces Completely Protect Licensed TV Broadcasting?

Wireless Future — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 02:21:00 -0500

This study and report were produced with funding from Microsoft Corporation.

Policy Background

In 2004, the FCC proposed to allow unlicensed wireless devices to utilize vacant television channel frequencies in each market, a rulemaking that is currently in its final stages. The FCC discussed three methods (control signals, position determination, and cognitive radio with dynamic frequency selection) to ensure that unlicensed TV band devices operate only on vacant channels without harmful interference to broadcast TV service. Of these methods, cognitive radio has spurred the most debate. The cognitive radio method uses spectrum sensing and dynamic frequency selection (DFS) to identify and avoid occupied TV channels. This method has been approved by the Defense Department for unlicensed devices to share spectrum with military radar in the upper 5 GHz band. Potential service providers and equipment manufacturers embrace it because it does not require external infrastructure. However, TV broadcasters oppose it because they do not understand it and fear it will result in harmful interference. This report answers the following question that is central to the FCC’s current rulemaking: can unlicensed TV band devices using cognitive radio techniques completely protect licensed broadcast TV services?

From TV to Public Safety

Wireless Future — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 04:41:00 -0400

Abstract

The events surrounding Hurricane Katrina and the 9/11 attacks demonstrated that the communications systems used by first responders in the United States are not adequate to meet the challenges of a post-9/11 world. The U.S. system is based on assumptions that local agencies should have maximal flexibility at the expense of standardization and regional coordination, that commercial carriers and municipal systems have little role to play, that public safety should not share spectrum or network infrastructure, and that narrowband voice applications should dominate. Many programs have been proposed to incrementally improve public safety communications systems, but without any fundamental changes to these policies, such incremental changes are likely to have limited impact.

However, a tremendous opportunity is coming thanks to the transition to digital television; 24 MHz of spectrum has been identified for reallocation from TV to public safety in 2009, roughly doubling the public safety spectrum below 2 GHz. Unless policymakers act, this new spectrum will be managed under these same old policies.

This paper explains why it is time for fundamental reform. Policy reforms should include some combination of: shifting some responsibility and authority for decisions about public safety communications infrastructure from many independent local government agencies to the federal government; further expanding the role of commercial service providers, municipal Wi-Fi networks, and other systems that serve the public; allowing public safety to share spectrum, and possibly multi-purpose network infrastructure as well, with other users; and further expanding capabilities beyond traditional voice communications. Since the TV band spectrum reallocated to public safety has few legacy systems that must be accommodated or moved, it is an excellent place to launch a new policy.

To read the entire paper, please see the PDF document linked below.

Building Constituencies for Spectrum Policy Change - First Report

Wireless Future — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 08:51:00 -0400

In early 2006, the Wireless Future Program at the New America Foundation, an independent think tank, launched a new initiative to advance its work on public interest spectrum policy by strengthening connections with -- and service to -- diverse public constituencies. NAF enlisted CIMA: Center for International Media Action to convene a group to advise its Wireless Future Program from the perspective of communities that have a vested stake in the debate, but whose interests are not well represented by current policy and industry agendas.

CIMA consulted with many colleagues and allies who work on issues of community media, public technology and telecommunications on behalf of low-income, rural, immigrant, Native, disabled and other underserved peoples, drawing process recommendations from allies who have experience building working relationships between policy think tanks and grassroots representatives. With this support, CIMA developed a plan for a "Stakeholder Strategy Committee" that would come together to share strategies for wireless policy and could provide guidance to New America moving forward.

The decision was made to begin with a focus on a core aspect of spectrum policy -- the public use of wireless high-speed (broadband) Internet. CIMA assembled the first Stakeholder Strategy Committee of 12 members from around the U.S., which then began discussing the issues by phone and e-mail. These members planned the first meeting, which was held in Chicago on March 20-21, 2006, hosted in two sites by Chicago Access TV and the Homan Square Community Center.

This first report summarizes the group's discussion. It covers the ideas and concerns of committee members with regards to telecommunications needs in various communities, values that should inform public interest spectrum/wireless policy, and resources needed for advocacy. While the committee broadly discussed framing and messaging for public interest advocacy and possible strategies for action, please note that the ideas expressed in this report do not represent an official blueprint for action or the consensus opinions of a coalition.

To view the full report, please complete this brief form to help New America better understand how this report is being used in the field. The information provided is optional, and will not be shared with third parties.

Populating the Vacant Channels

Wireless Future — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 02:27:00 -0400

There are vacant channels between broadcast television stations in every media market. This spectrum can be used by unlicensed devices without interfering with television viewing.

An unlicensed allocation of these bands would be the most productive way to use this spectrum. Unlicensed spectrum is a proven way to generate technical and commercial innovation; promotes healthy diversity in markets and regulatory models; and complements the licensed allocation in the nearby 700 MHz band.

A broad cross-section of society would benefit, including rural and inner-city residents seeking affordable Internet access, entrepreneurs starting up digital communication businesses, cities and companies seeking to foster growth and productivity, and citizens who want to create home or community broadband networks.

Congress should press the FCC to act on its dormant Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by allocating this spectrum to unlicensed use.

To access the full Working Paper, see the attached PDF file.

Examples of Consumer Benefits from TV 'White Spaces' Legislation

Wireless Future — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 22:22:00 -0400

What all community wireless networks—commercial (WISP), municipal and community nonprofit—have in common is the unlicensed spectrum they use to transmit signals. Opening more low-frequency spectrum – such as the unused TV channels – is therefore the “rocket fuel” needed to facilitate and scale up community wireless networks, as well as home and business WiFi networks. Unlicensed, or open spectrum, refers to segments of the airwaves that have not been licensed by the government for exclusive use by one company or other entity. Unlicensed frequency bands are therefore shared, with no protection against interference. Very little of the most valuable “beachfront” spectrum – those frequencies that easily penetrate obstacles such as walls, trees and precipitation, as TV signals do – are allocated for unlicensed sharing. Currently, every region in America has great amounts of low-frequency spectrum that is sitting empty and unused. These are the unused TV channels. Although the particular channels vary in each local market, in most parts of the nation a majority of local TV frequencies are not being used – but could be, for affordable and mobile broadband access.

Below are some of the benefits to consumers and the U.S. economy:

1. Rural Broadband Deployment
The highly favorable propagation characteristics of the TV broadcast spectrum (as compared to operation at 1.9 GHz or 2.5 GHz) allow for wireless broadband deployment with greater range of operation (including the ability to pass through buildings, weather, and foliage) at lower power levels. Thus, the TV white spaces could be used to provide better broadband service in less densely populated and bad weather areas, as well as a first broadband service in many rural and other remote areas.

2. Auxiliary Public Safety Communications
In emergencies, the TV white spaces could be used to provide auxiliary services to augment public safety communications on licensed networks. For example, rescue efforts could be enhanced by placing remote video cameras at a disaster site to relay images to a command center; or using portable “helmet cams” to provide real-time, point-of-view command/control information.

3. Educational and Enterprise Video Conferencing
The TV white spaces can be used to give local high schools and middleschools what major university campuses already have: mobile, high-speed Internet access to every desk, student and teacher equipped with a laptop. It also can be used to increase the reliability and decrease the cost of video conferencing on college and commercial campuses. For example, combined with broadband connectivity, such videoconferencing could help enable distance learning for students in remote locations for whom traditional classroom-based learning is impractical.

4. Personal Consumer Applications
The TV white spaces could be used to provide new consumer applications that take advantage of the improved signal reliability and range of the TV broadcast spectrum. Wireless local area networks using low power and battery operated devices could enable new capabilities that bring safety, convenience, and comfort to consumers in their homes. For example, such devices could provide improved energy efficiency through intelligent home automation and power monitoring or home security with robust low power wireless video feeds.

5. Mesh Networks
The TV white spaces could be used to enable mesh networking, whereby information is relayed locally from node to node. Because mesh networking is “self-configuring,” any disruption or failure of a single node will cause a “re-route” as opposed to a network failure, thereby enabling reliable communications. Through use of mesh networks, unserved or underserved communities could readily and cost effectively create their own network extensions as alternative means of Internet connectivity. In addition, because mesh networks are easily deployed, they can offer a means of communications if existing networks fail during catastrophes.

6. Security Applications
The favorable propagation and bandwidth characteristics of the TV broadcast spectrum could enable enhanced video security applications for commercial, residential, and government purposes. Some examples of security applications using the TV white spaces could include perimeter video surveillance; robust wireless secure area monitoring; and childcare monitoring in the home or in childcare facilities.

7. Municipal Broadband Access
A number of municipalities across the nation are already deploying first generation wireless local area networks to provide broadband access as a public service to their citizens – and to make local government services more productive for taxpayers. Use of the TV white spaces for such municipal broadband networks could increase the quality of service and decrease the deployment costs for such networks.

8. Enhanced Local Coverage and Communications
Localities could use the TV white spaces to enable mobile video services. These services could provide information of special interest to the local community; coverage of local sporting events; and new methods for local advertisers to reach customers in a more targeted and valued manner.

Why Unlicensed Use of Vacant TV Spectrum Will Not Interfere with Television Reception

Wireless Future — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 20:08:00 -0400

This paper takes account of new information to update an earlier New America Issue Brief by the same authors: “Why Unlicensed Use of the White Space in the TV Bands Will Not Cause Interference to DTV Viewers” (October 2005).

On June 28, the Senate Commerce Committee marked up and adopted comprehensive telecom reform legislation (S. 2686, “The Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunity Reform Act of 2006”). The legislation included a provision (Title VI, “The Wireless Innovation Act of 2006”) directing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to adopt rules permitting, to the greatest extent feasible, unlicensed access to the unused TV channels in each local TV market for WiFi, local wireless broadband services, and other innovations. This Brief addresses the technical arguments raised by the opponents of this legislation. In summary, the type of worst-case scenarios opponents raise can easily be addressed through the application of new smart radio technology and the conventional FCC rulemaking process.

To access the entire text of this Issue Brief, please see the attached PDF document.

Wireless Public Safety Data Networks Operating on Unlicensed Airwaves

Wireless Future — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 07:00:00 -0400

From the fire fighters who died on 9/11 to the rescue workers struggling to help victims of Hurricane Katrina, recent crises have demonstrated that the absence of reliable and interoperable voice and data communications among public safety agencies is an urgent national dilemma. While the need for voice interoperability among first responders is a fundamental and longstanding public safety issue that must be resolved, many communities across the nation have already begun to supplement their voice communication networks with wireless broadband data networks operating over unlicensed spectrum—most notably the 2.4 GHz “Wi-Fi” band.

These cutting-edge mobile high-speed data networks complement voice systems and serve as a cost-effective means to deliver applications such as streaming video for surveillance and disaster response, fast downloads of suspect mug shots or building blueprints, and access to public safety databases. By providing first responders with more resources in the field—and reducing the time they need spend in the office – these wireless data networks act as a “force multiplier,” improving overall public safety.