First "white spaces" deployment

In this article, Ars Technica reports on what they claim is the first use of "white spaces" in the television band. As I stated in my iConference paper, I believe that the white spaces ruling will be of greatest benefit to rural communities.

Quoting the article:

The nation's first wireless broadband network operating in unused TV channel "white spaces" is now live in an unlikely spot—Claudville, Virginia.

Claudville is a small place—only 20,000 people live in the entire county, and only 900 in Claudville proper—and its Blue Ridge Mountain terrain has made Internet access hard to come by. Combine that with a countywide per capita income of $15,574 and its not hard to see why the big ISPs haven't rushed to Claudville.

In this case, the white spaces provided "backhaul" for WLANs that were deployed in town. I don't know whose equipment was used, though it appears to be a database-driven radio rather than a sensor-driven cognitive radio.

Microsoft study places value on white spaces

I found this article interesting.

The study, by consultant Richard Thanki of Perspective Associates, suggests that by augmenting current unlicensed wireless networks, such as Wi-Fi hot spots, the white spaces could generate between $3.9 billion and $7.3 billion in value annually over 15 years. That would be the result of increased use of consumer electronics and other factors, according to the study.

In his study, Thanki writes that white spaces spectrum offers a broader range than a typical Wi-Fi connection. A single Wi-Fi access point enhanced by the white spaces could "fully cover a large building and the neighboring grounds and areas," he writes.

In addition, use of the white spaces could lower the cost of providing Internet access in rural areas, Thanki writes.

While chips used to power white spaces devices would initially cost roughly $10 more than existing technologies in 2012, the difference should steadily decline at a rate of about 30% annually from that point on, according to the study.

I would love to get a copy of that study ...



Posted using ShareThis

We should have seen this coming ...

It seems that many FCC decisions are challenged in Appeals Court, so this one, challenging the "white spaces" decision, shouldn't come as a surprise. This could turn into an entertaining "food fight", though, pitting the powerful National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) against the well connected White Spaces Coalition.

On a related note, you might find this editorial by Tom Hazlett interesting. Hazlett writes:

The new Obama Administration got Congress to fast-track an 11th-hour delay, pushing back the mandatory analog switch-off until June 12, 2009.

But many TV stations wanted to cut their analog broadcasts anyway. In truth, they believe that over-the-air transmissions are a waste, not worth the electricity it takes to send them. Hence, some 420 TV stations pulled the plug last week, joining another 200 analog stations that had already signed off.

Later in the article, he writes:

One hundred million households now pay $600 or so per year to avoid [over the air broadcasting], subscribing to cable or satellite. Well over 90 per cent of TV viewing takes place in households opting out of broadcast delivery. And for a very small additional investment – no more than $3bn – every last rabbit-eared home in America could join them.

Yet, the US is subsidizing off-air receivers; $1.5bn has been allotted for digital set-top converters (two $40 vouchers per family), and the Obama “stimulus” pumps in $650m more. This is not merely money down the drain. In extending life-support to DTV signals that hog hugely valuable frequencies, consumers lose hundreds of billions worth of wireless service. The bandwidth available to iPhones, Blackberrys and GPhones and other emerging technologies would double were TV air waves to accommodate mobile apps as requested in 1985.

Why don’t all broadcasters – digital and analog – just unplug? First, their licenses mandate that they broadcast TV signals, and they cannot legally sell the air waves used for more valuable services. And second, because their signals continue to reach one key target audience: Congress. Those appreciative entertainment fans reward stations with “must carry” rights forcing cable and satellite operators to provide their subscribers all local channels. The off-air transmission is a side show; gaining free cable carriage the main event.

If you agree with Hazlett's viewpoint, the NAB's challenge to the white spaces decision is consistent with a "do whatever it takes" strategy to preserve the existing business model, regardless of whether they are viable in the long term.

A couple of telecom-related URLs

I need to break the "radio silence" ... I've been pretty busy with administrative projects and travel, so blogging has taken a back seat.

I have been working on dynamic spectrum access (DSA) for a number of years now. A paper on one of my projects, together with Arnon Tonmukayakul, is coming out in Netnomics shortly. In addition, I presented a paper on DSA and the FCC White Spaces decision at the recent iConference. Hopefully, the papers will be made available soon.

So, given this, I found this site to be of interest. You can use it to find the TV white spaces at a particular address.

If you go back through this blog, you'll find that I have been interested in (OK, critical of) comparative studies of broadband penetration. So, I found this site interesting, which looks at broadband from the point of view of connectivity rather than penetration. From this perspective, rankings (for what they're worth) look quite different.

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?