An example of an 801.22 Wireless Regional Area Network

The mainstream media and technology blogs have been running away with coverage about the IEEE’s recent approval of the so-called “white space” 802.22 wireless standard with stories of up to 100 kilometers of wireless coverage for home Wi-Fi over unused UHF television channels.  The thought of installing a router that can deliver reception of your personal broadband connection for up to 62 square miles sounds very exciting, but don’t get as carried away as some media outlets have.

The truth is, 802.22 benefits wireless providers, not consumers (unless you happen to receive your Internet service from a commercial provider over this technology.)

The new standard was designed to benefit Wireless Regional Area Networks (WRANs).  In general terms, this means Wireless Internet Service Provider (WISPs), who are most likely to adopt the new technology to enhance wireless service over long distances in rural areas not covered by DSL, cable broadband, or other wired networks.  To achieve the maximum amount of coverage noted in the popular press, providers will need to utilize specialized transmitters using antennas considerably higher than what one would find in a home environment.

Unlike today’s Wi-Fi networks, 802.22 uses much lower frequencies which tend to propagate over longer distances.  Using frequencies in the Megahertz range instead of the Gigahertz range makes it much more likely ground-based wireless signals will penetrate buildings and reach across the rural landscape.

To accommodate “white space” wireless, the Federal Communications Commission last year approved the use of unused broadcast channels for these data transmissions.  But providers will not simply be able to fire up their white space Wi-Fi network just anywhere.  The standard includes a provision that will automatically register the exact location of each transmission site with a central coordinating body.  Providers must agree to vacate channels if harmful interference to licensed broadcasters is “sensed” by the technology, and even though multiple operators may be able to operate concurrently in an area at the same time, there are important limitations on how many available “white space” channels will exist in different television markets.

Realistically, the most sensible implementation of 802.22 will come in very rural areas with few, if any, local broadcast signals to contend with.  If the FCC has its way, a considerable amount of the so-called “white space” will be sold off to America’s largest cell phone companies, leaving even fewer channels open for this kind of wireless broadband.  In large urban markets, it’s doubtful many channels will be available for 802.22 use, if any at all.  Currently, the FCC dictates these networks cannot operate on an occupied broadcast channel, or the adjacent channels on either side.  That means if your city has a station on channel 31, these networks cannot use channels 30, 31, or 32.

Another problem is the available bandwidth for individual users.  Each “channel” has 6MHz of bandwidth, which can realistically provide 12Mbps service to a single user.  The IEEE specifies a maximum speed of 22Mbps, but that is more theoretical than actual when taking into account the longer distances average customers will be from the transmitter.  Providers will almost certainly pack each channel with multiple users.  A dozen customers concurrently using the service would probably get around 1.5Mbps on average (384kbps upstream), assuming nobody saturates the channel at maximum speeds. That is equivalent to some rural DSL providers.  Should providers “oversubscribe” the network, and dozens of customers try and use the service at the same time, speeds could drop precipitously.  The further users are from the transmitter, the lower the speeds they will receive regardless of how many users are on the network at that time.

To handle demand, one solution is to run multiple transmitters to handle the traffic, but how many transmitters can operate will depend on how much “white space” is available.  That is why this technology is best suited for rural areas where UHF television signals, and customers, are few and far between.

Home Wi-Fi users will need to wait for the development of a different standard — 802.11af — to take any advantage of “white-space” Wi-Fi, sometimes called White-Fi or “Super Wi-Fi.”

Since the much used 2.4 GHz band for Wi-Fi is congested in urban areas, IEEE 802.11af can provide additional open frequencies for home users.  But most 802.11af home equipment will operate at considerably lower power and range, and will suffer some of the same bandwidth limitations created by narrow channel spacing.  An even bigger problem will be available channel space.  The same urban areas experiencing over-congested Wi-Fi will also likely have the largest number of operating television signals, limiting the use of this technology.

Some theorize White-Fi wireless will not be of much use to home broadband users at all, instead opening up connectivity for devices we might not normally associate with wireless connectivity.  A home security system could plausibly work well with limited bandwidth.  So could home electronic devices that want to communicate their status.  A washer and dryer could use the technology to communicate with each other to synchronize completion time and signal the homeowner that their laundry is ready.  Home weather stations could deliver data over longer distances, refrigerators could signal owners they need to be restocked, and so on.

If you are waiting for wireless broadband nirvana, unfortunately there is not much to see here with these developments.  Increasing usage demands continue to make wireless among the least suitable technologies to deliver the substantial-sized data pipeline broadband consumers increasingly require.

The Federal Communications Commission today released MEASURING BROADBAND AMERICA, the first nationwide performance study of residential wireline broadband service in the United States.  The study examined service offerings from 13 of the largest wireline broadband providers using automated, direct measurements of broadband performance delivered to the homes of thousands of volunteers during March 2011.

Among the key findings:

Providers are being more honest about their advertised speeds: Actual speeds are moving closer to the speeds promised by those providers.  Back in 2009, the FCC found a greater disparity between advertised and delivered speeds.  But the Commission also found that certain providers are more likely to deliver than others, and certain broadband technologies are simply more reliable and consistent.

Fiber-to-the-Home service was the runaway winner, consistently delivering even better speeds than advertised (114%).  Cable broadband delivered 93% of advertised speeds, while DSL only managed to deliver 82 percent of what providers promise.  Fiber broadband speeds are consistent, with just a 0.4 percent decline in speeds during peak usage periods.

Cable companies are still overselling their networks.  The FCC found during peak usage periods (7-11pm), 7.3 percent of cable-based services suffered from speed decreases — generally a sign a provider has piled too many customers onto an overburdened network.  One clear clue of overselling: the FCC found upload speeds largely unaffected.

DSL has capacity and speed issues.  DSL also experienced speed drops, with 5.5 percent of customers witnessing significant speed deterioration, which could come from an overshared D-SLAM, where multiple DSL customers connect with equipment that relays their traffic back to the central office, or from insufficient connectivity to the Internet backbone.

Some providers are much better than others.  The FCC found some remarkable variability in the performance of different ISPs.  Let’s break several down:

• Verizon’s FiOS was the clear winner among the major providers tested, winning top performance marks across the board.  Few providers came close;
• Comcast had the most consistently reliable speeds among cable broadband providers.  Cox beat them at times, but only during hours when few customers were using their network;
• AT&T U-verse was competitive with most cable broadband packages, but is already being outclassed by cable companies offering DOCSIS 3-based premium speed tiers;
• Cablevision has a seriously oversold broadband network.  Their results were disastrous, scoring the worst of all providers for consistent service during peak usage periods.  Their performance was simply unacceptable, incapable of delivering barely more than half of promised speeds during the 10pm-12am window.
• It was strictly middle-of-the-road performance for Time Warner Cable, Insight, and CenturyLink.  They aren’t bad, but they could be better.
• Mediacom continued its tradition of being a mediocre cable provider, delivering consistently below-average results for their customers during peak usage periods.  They are not performing necessary upgrades to keep up with user demand.
• Most major DSL providers — AT&T, Frontier, and Qwest — promise little and deliver as much.  Their ho-hum advertised speeds combined with unimpressive scores for time of day performance variability should make all of these the consumers’ last choice for broadband service if other options are available.

Some conclusions the FCC wants consumers to ponder:

1. For basic web-browsing and Voice-Over-IP, any provider should be adequate.  Shop on price. Consumers should not overspend for faster tiers of service they will simply not benefit from all that much.  Web pages loaded at similar speeds regardless of the speed tier chosen.
2. Video streaming benefits from consistent speeds and network reliability.  Fiber and cable broadband usually deliver faster speeds that can ensure reliable high quality video streaming.  DSL may or may not be able to keep up with our HD video future.
3. Temporary speed-boost technology provided by some cable operators is a useful gimmick.  It can help render web pages and complete small file downloads faster.  It can’t beat fiber’s consistently faster speeds, but can deliver a noticeable improvement over DSL.

More than 78,000 consumers volunteered to participate in the study and a total of approximately 9,000 consumers were selected as potential participants and were supplied with specially configured routers. The data in the report is based on a statistically selected subset of those consumers—approximately 6,800 individuals—and the measurements taken in their homes during March 2011. The participants in the volunteer consumer panel were recruited with the goal of covering ISPs within the U.S. across all broadband technologies, although only results from three major technologies—DSL, cable, and fiber-to-the-home—are reflected in the report.

New Englandia. Upstate New York. Northern California. Carolina. Missipiana.

None of these are actual states, but based on the people we communicate with who share our interests, perhaps they should be.

Researchers at MIT’s Senseable City Lab, AT&T Labs-Research and IBM Research are revealing new research that redefines regional boundaries in the United States, using patterns of social connectedness across the country derived from anonymous and aggregated cell phone data.

The results, based on numbers called and the geographic destinations or text messages, are predictable in some places, surprising in others.

The Connected States of America (click to enlarge)

Take New Jersey for example.  The state is remarkably divided between the northern half, whose people are socially linked with metropolitan New York City, and the southern half which almost entirely ignores the Big Apple and Long Island, maintaining closer connections with southeastern Pennsylvania and Delaware.

Some other highlights:

• Socially, most of North and South Carolina are indistinguishable from one-another.
• Chattanooga has more in common with Alabama and Georgia than the rest of Tennessee.
• Southern California’s sprawl is to the east, not to the north.  The influence from Los Angeles and San Diego now extends into Arizona, Nevada and even Utah.  Northern California sticks to itself with one exception — it has connections towards Reno, Nevada.
• Upstate New York, mostly above the Hudson Valley, is socially similar all the way west to Lake Erie, with the exception of Chautauqua County, which is culturally closer to Appalachian areas in western Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
• New England maintains close ties with the exception of northern Maine and New Hampshire, which may be closer to Atlantic Canada.
• Standalone states that mostly keep to themselves include Florida, Texas, Colorado, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio.  With interest, many of those states are also politically defined as “swing states.”

The “Connected States of America” provides a more natural delineation of regions that follows relationships between family, friends and business partners.

“Sister states” emerge, such as Georgia and Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana, and Tennessee and Kentucky, among others.

Metropolitan areas often form pockets of influence that extend into neighboring states or communities; for example, Chattanooga, Tenn., is more closely linked to communities in Georgia and Alabama than to the rest of Tennessee. Pittsburgh, Penn., and West Virginia form a new “state,” while St. Louis, Mo., exhibits an expanded reach that splits Illinois into two regions.

New Jersey and California also divide into two distinct regions due to large cities. In contrast, Texas remains whole: Despite the potentially splitting influence of cities such as Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Austin, the researchers found that there is enough inter-city communication to hold the state together.

After declining formal hearings and conducting their own investigations, the states of Louisiana, Arizona, and West Virginia approved the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile after briefly reviewing documentation promoting the merger, mostly supplied by the companies themselves.

The most controversial approval came from the Louisiana Public Service Commission, overseen by Gov. Bobby Jindal.  Jindal has strongly supported the merger, and his wife’s charity — the Supriya Jindal Foundation — receives substantial economic support from AT&T.  The Commission voted 4-1 for the merger, citing “overriding support locally, as is evidence by the diverse number of groups and officials who are in support.”

More accurately, AT&T contributed to a diverse number of groups that soon sent letters to the FCC supporting the merger.  Most notably, the Urban League of New Orleans, which touted the merger without disclosing the fact AT&T Louisiana president Sonia Perez is a member of the group’s governing board and their 2011 Annual Gala Chairperson.

In Arizona, AT&T won approval from state officials without any hearings, investigation, or much consideration, period.  In fact, less than two weeks ago Arizona officials issued subpoenas to Sprint/Nextel, demanding documentation from them regarding their opposition to the merger.

West Virginia’s Public Service Commission also gave a cursory review to the merger, quickly deciding it posed little impact on the state, since T-Mobile has ignored West Virginia all along, owning just three cellular towers and equipment on 27 others in the state.  T-Mobile also has no West Virginian employees.

State officials believe AT&T’s promise to deliver 4G upgrades inside West Virginia if the merger deal is approved.  But since T-Mobile has no presence in the state, the company’s argument of combining forces for better service doesn’t make much sense.

The PSC relied heavily on Attorney General Darrell McGraw’s pronouncement that the merger would not harm wireless competition in the Mountain State.  Besides, if it did, federal authorities would stop it.

“Any possible implications from this transaction on competition nationwide will be considered by federal authorities,” the PSC wrote.

West Virginia officials denied requests for a hearing before making their decision.

Attorneys General from 11 states not well-known for strong consumer protection have signed letters encouraging the approval of the merger.  Among them:  Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Attorneys General in New York, California, and Hawaii are taking a much closer, and some say more critical look at the merger.  At the lead is New York’s Eric Schneiderman:

“Cell phones are no longer a luxury for a few among us, but a basic necessity. The last thing New Yorkers need during these difficult economic times is to see cell phone prices rise,” said Schneiderman. “Affordable wireless service and technology, including smart phones and next generation handheld devices, are the bridge to the digital broadband future. We want to ensure all New Yorkers benefit from these important innovations that improve lives.”

Attorney General Schneiderman stressed that some market conditions may differ across the state and highlighted the potential impact of the merger in areas like Rochester, Albany, Buffalo and Syracuse, where there are already fewer wireless options. He is also concerned about the impact on consumers throughout the state, where T-Mobile is a low-cost option.

KMBC's helicopter got a visual overview of the devastating Lenexa fire than left one man dead.

Bahtier Hashimov and his fiancée lost nearly everything in a massive apartment fire that took one man’s life and left 60 people homeless.  As the former residents of Oak Park Village tried to piece their lives back together, Hashimov discovered one company standing in the way.

Time Warner Cable made a bad situation worse for the couple, demanding immediate payment of $438 for a cable box and modem destroyed in the fire, still under investigation by Lenexa, Kansas fire investigators.

“I was really in shock,” Hashimov told KSHB-TV in Kansas City.  “It was really disappointing.”

Cable companies like Time Warner Cable, Charter Cable, and Bright House Networks have brought bad publicity on themselves over the past year demanding hundreds of dollars from victims of tornadoes, floods, fires, and other natural disasters.  Most cable companies claim they are entitled to the full value of lost cable equipment, typically recouped from insurance claims filed by homeowners or renters after disaster strikes.  But renters frequently don’t buy renter’s insurance, falsely believing property owners’ own insurance will cover their losses.

Some insurance policies also do not cover the full value of cable equipment, depreciating its value based on age and the fact most cable equipment provided to customers is not new.  But some cable companies demand full repayment anyway, even if it exceeds compensation provided by insurance settlements.

When tragedies lead to unseemly collection efforts by providers, local news coverage usually embarrasses them enough to moderate their policies, often waiving charges.

In Hashimov’s case, a local Time Warner Cable representative quickly claimed the charges “must have been a mistake,” claiming Time Warner Cable does not hold customers accountable for natural disasters.  Company policy is to deal with insurance companies to secure compensation, and when that fails “they work something out.”  A company spokesperson told the Kansas City station they never want the customer to feel the impact of something that was not their fault.

Cable companies could save themselves considerable bad publicity and embarrassment if they immediately waive equipment charges for customers who are victims of these types of tragedies.

Instead, Time Warner Cable had Hashimov jumping through hoops, first telling him to get a letter from the fire department to bring to a local Time Warner Cable office to get the unreturned equipment fees waived.  When he arrived, a representative told him the letter was no good and he owed the money.

Although the company is now negotiating with Hashimov, the matter has still not been resolved.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KSHB Kansas City Fire victims get stuck with a cable bill after the cable box 7-28-11.mp4[/flv]

KSHB-TV in Kansas City talked with Bahtier Hashimov and his fiancée Victoria — victims of a devastating apartment complex fire and a $438 bill from the cable company for a lost cable box and modem.  (2 minutes)