TV White spaces

This issue is on the agenda today at the FCC, and it was a major topic at the recent IEEE DySPAN. The technology is intriguing, and it is hard to argue with using otherwise unused spectrum for new services. Like some others (see, for example this item over at Broadband Consensus and some of Tom Hazlett's articles, like this one over at Ars Technica) I am coming to the conclusion that we're going about this all wrong.

Given that a small percentage of households receive over the air TV, shouldn't we really be discussing doing away with that technology, and encourage broadcasters to change their business model to being pure programming providers, instead of bundling programming with delivery techniques?

The reason this is important to discuss now is that many of the white spaces devices are optimized for the particulars of the TV spectrum. If this becomes unlicensed use, then the existing channelization becomes effectively locked in because it is difficult to coordinate disparate unlicensed users to transition to a new channelization regime. Is this in the best long term interest?

Cable TV standardization

Some months ago, I had written this article regarding cable, set top boxes, and standards. So, when Forbes posted this item. According to the article:

Facing pressure from regulators, the cable TV industry plans to make good on a promise to standardize its technology and open the door to televisions and other gadgets that don't need cable boxes to receive video-on-demand programs and other interactive services.

An industry initiative, to be renamed "tru2way" after a decade in the works, is expected to allow electronics manufacturers to make TVs and other gear that will work regardless of cable provider. By making devices compatible, the standard also could encourage the development of new services and features that rely on two-way communication over the cable network.

Note that Engadget and CED are framing this as merely a rebranding of "OpenCable". Comcast CEO Brian Roberts is claiming that there is more to it (from the Forbes article):

Our business model has changed completely, from a closed, proprietary model to an open architecture that will work across cable companies - not just across Comcast. That was a Herculean job to accomplish.

Suppose we took Roberts' view at face value. Is it reasonable to imagine the industry model evolving from a vertically integrated "customer experience" to a "platform-based" one? That is, is it reasonable to imagine that the initial innovation in an industry would require a high degree of control, so that specific investments in physical infrastructure could be coupled with specific investments in "software"?

In fact, we have seen this initially in telephony:

• The introduction of automatic switching had to be closely coupled with end user devices.
• The transitition to a "common battery" for handsets (from locally powered devices) also had to be closely coordinated. It is interesting that we seem to be gradually transititioning back to the locally powered paradigm, but that's another story.

Are we seeing this in wireless as well, with Verizon announcing the opening of their wireless network?

Can services successful in one country gain traction in another?

I found this article interesting. It reminds me also of the Mobile Television services that have been successful in Korea and iMode, which was successful in Japan. Text messaging is another example of a technology that was successful in Europe but was slow to take off in the US (it has done so now -- ask any teen or young adult in the US).

These are the latest examples of technologies that have been successul in one country that may or may not translate to successful services in other countries. It is clear that cultural values are a piece of this, but so are living arrangements, communting arrangements, etc.

Transition to digital radio

In the US, we are most likely to read about the transition to digital television. Indeed, I have referred to this several times on this blog (see this, for example). What is also happening, though much more quietly, is digital radio. In the past few months, I have begun hearing advertisements in the local market for "HD Radio" (which is how this is being branded in the US). To gain perspective on this, you might find this article from Wired interesting. Here is part of what they have to say:

But in the United States? Not so much. Slightly more than 1,000 U.S. stations now broadcast in HD Radio, according to iBiquity Digital, the company that created the technology behind digital radio in the United States. But none yet offer the features available in the United Kingdom. Instead, they use the additional frequencies HD Radio technology provides to offer new channels of content called "multicasts." Top 40 station WNKS, for example, simulcasts its main analog signal on one of its HD Radio frequencies, and multicasts a Christian format on the other.

"Multicasting is HD Radio's initial value proposition, but it's just a first step," says iBiquity CEO Bob Struble.

Struble envisions HD Radio eventually delivering scrolling-text news and traffic updates, integrating with car navigation systems, and offering on-demand song downloads. And the new partnership between Clear Channel and Microsoft will create a national data service called MSN Direct HD that delivers localized, personalized content to home and car HD Radio receivers.

Just as in television, what is required is an equipment investment on the part of consumers. Right now, the choices are fairly limited. Do you think that the transition is likely? There is not a government push behind it (at least that I am aware of) as is the case with HDTV