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.

AT&T's new choke collar for "unlimited use" data plan customers, ready for wearing Oct. 1

Now that Verizon Wireless has stopped signing up new customers for its unlimited usage data plan, AT&T plans to start targeting its grandfathered unlimited-data customers with speed throttles that will effectively limit the company’s “unlimited use” plan.  And the company is trying to suggest approval of its merger with T-Mobile might prevent its growing use.

AT&T says effective Oct. 1, the top 5 percent of its wireless users will receive a warning message before their speeds are cut to near-dial up for the remainder of the billing cycle.

“We’re taking steps to manage exploding demand for mobile data,” said the company in a statement.  AT&T added that “nothing short of completing the T-Mobile merger” will effectively solve the company’s network capacity issues.

“The planned combination of AT&T and T-Mobile is the fastest and surest way to handle the challenge of increasing demand and improving network quality for customers,” said AT&T.

With Verizon Wireless’ exit as a competitive alternative for unlimited data, AT&T’s newly announced speed throttle may not pose much of a risk for business when implemented, as infuriated customers have just one remaining provider offering unlimited data – Sprint.

While AT&T has not specified an exact amount of data usage that will put users in the penalty corner, they did say most of those facing throttling are “streaming video or playing some online games.”

Some AT&T customers use their unlimited wireless plans as a home broadband replacement — an action that could easily bring back a dial-up experience when the speed throttle kicks in.

Only customers on “unlimited use” plans will face AT&T’s special speed treatment.  Those paying for usage-limited packages are exempt.

AT&T’s ongoing hard-sell for the merger has not been well-received by some on Capitol Hill.

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) blamed AT&T for its lack of willingness to spend money on improving its own network infrastructure for self-inflicted network capacity problems.  Franken believes the merger would be anti-competitive and anti-consumer.

In letters to the Department of Justice and Federal Communications Commission, Franken spelled out in great detail why approving the merger does not make sense:

“The competitive effects of a merger of this size and scope will reverberate throughout the telecommunications sector for decades to come and will affect consumer prices, customer service, innovation, competition in handsets and the quality and quantity of network coverage. These threats are too large and too irrevocable to be prevented or alleviated by conditions,” wrote Franken.

The International Business Times summarized many of Franken’s larger points:

• AT&T owns more spectrum than any other company, yet AT&T has been plagued with delays in rolling out infrastructure to support spectrum it has been allocated.  The quality of the service it provides is consistently ranked last amongst the national carriers, and it continues to use spectrum in an inefficient manner;
• Many of [AT&T’s] spectrum licenses remain undeveloped, including $9 billion worth of some of the most valuable “beachfront” spectrum;
• Other national wireless carriers have been aggressively preparing for this crunch. However, unlike the other wireless providers, AT&T has not visibly taken decisive steps to prepare for the coming crunch, despite the fact that AT&T should have recognized the need for additional investment shortly after introducing the iPhone in 2007;
• AT&T only increased its spending on wireless infrastructure by one percent in 2009. Although AT&T will point out that one percent is still a significant number, Verizon made the decision to increase its capital spending by 10 percent in 2009/9 and Verizon is now in a much better position when it comes to spectrum capacity.

Over the air television in Detroit if the NAB is correct.

The National Association of Broadcasters is warning a Congressional plan proposed on behalf of the wireless industry could force every broadcast station in Detroit off the air, and drive at least one network affiliate in many northern U.S. cities along the Canadian border to “go dark” if the plan is adopted.

The FCC’s National Broadband Plan contains provisions now on Capitol Hill to recapture spectrum currently used by free over-the-air television stations and provide it to wireless providers to bolster mobile broadband and cell phone networks.  Lawmakers expect the wireless industry will pay up to $33 billion for the lucrative spectrum, to be shared with vacating broadcasters and the U.S. Treasury.

But the NAB says the FCC plan goes too far, forcing stations to vacate UHF channels 31-51 to crowd into the remaining channel space of 11 VHF channels (2-13) and 17 UHF channels (14-31).  According to a study conducted by the broadcasting lobby, there is simply not enough remaining channel space to accommodate 1,735 U.S. stations, forcing at least 210 to sign off, permanently.

Because of agreements with the Canadian government to protect American and Canadian stations from mutual interference, the results could be devastating for northern cities along the U.S.-Canadian border.  The worst impact would be in Detroit, Michigan where the NAB predicts every local station would have to leave the airwaves.

The cities of Buffalo, Seattle, Syracuse, Cleveland, Spokane, Rochester and Watertown, NY and Flint, Mich. would likely lose at least one major network affiliated-full power station each.  At least 73 stations in the top-10 largest television markets would be forced off the air, unable to find appropriate channel space in the remaining available spectrum.  Hundreds of stations would be forced to change channels and potentially reduce power and coverage areas to protect stations sharing the same channel number in adjacent cities.

“If the FCC’s National Broadband Plan to recapture 20 more TV channels is implemented, service disruption, confusion and inconvenience for local television viewers will make the 2009 DTV transition seem like child’s play,” said NAB President Gordon Smith. “NAB endorses truly voluntary spectrum auctions. Our concern is that the FCC plan will morph into involuntary, because it is impossible for the FCC to meet spectrum reclamation goals without this becoming a government mandate.”

Broadcasters are feeling a bit peeved at the federal government for repeatedly returning to sell off a dwindling number of channels for other uses.  The original UHF dial included channels 14-83, but over the years the highest channel number has dropped to 51, mostly for the benefit of the cell phone industry.  Now they’re back for more, seeking channels 31-51 for wireless broadband and mobile telephony.

The cell phone industry wants broadcasters to “voluntarily” give up their channel space and reduce transmitter power so more stations can share the same dial position in nearby cities.  But that could leave fringe reception areas in rural communities between cities without over-the-air television reception, and make free television more difficult to watch without a rooftop antenna.

The NAB called on the FCC to immediately make public its analyses of the broadband plan’s potential negative impact on viewers of free and local television.

“We’ve waited patiently for over a year for FCC data on how the Broadband Plan impacts broadcasters, and more importantly, the tens of millions of viewers who rely every day on local TV for news, entertainment, sports and lifeline emergency weather information,” said the NAB’s Smith. “Even Congress can’t get information from the FCC. All we are seeking is more transparency. We have but one chance to get this right if we are to preserve future innovation for broadcasters and our viewers.”

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NAB Free TV Spot.f4v[/flv]

The National Association of Broadcasters is distributing this ad to local broadcasters to air on their stations to inform viewers about the spectrum controversy.  (1 minute)

The consumer wireless handset lobby does not deny the plan will leave Americans with fewer channel choices, but they believe that will come from corporate station owners voluntarily shutting down stations for profit.

“The study presumes an unrealistic scenario in which every single existing TV station continues to operate over-the-air. However in the event of incentive spectrum auctions, it is highly likely numerous stations will capitalize on their spectrum assets by exiting the business or sharing resources,” said Consumer Electronics Association senior vice president for government affairs Michael Petricone.

Petricone believes the number of Americans spending time with broadcast television is dwindling, and less important than the wireless industry’s spectrum woes.

“Our nation faces a crisis as demand for wireless spectrum will soon outstrip supply,” said Petricone. “Meanwhile, the number of Americans relying purely on over-the-air TV is less than 10 percent, according to both CEA and Nielsen market research. Incentive auctions would be a financial windfall for broadcasters, free up the spectrum necessary for the next generation of American innovation to move forward and bring in $33 billion to the U.S. Treasury.”

The cellular industry’s top lobbying group CTIA was more plain: it’s survival of the fittest.

“Since spectrum is a finite resource, it is vital that the U.S. government ensures the highest and best use of it,” said CTIA vice president Chris Guttman-McCabe.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NAB Explains Spectrum.flv[/flv]

The NAB explains the concept of “spectrum” — or ‘the airwaves’ to consumers and what a major reduction in UHF channel space would mean for “free television.”  (3 minutes)

Cantor

For all of the bluster about not raising taxes, a group of House Republicans have proposed doing what one telecom organization concludes is exactly that by diverting Universal Service Fund revenue paid by landline and cell phone customers to reduce the budget deficit.

The idea to divert at least $1 billion annually — about 25% of the USF budget, comes from House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.).  USF fees are paid by consumers as part of their telephone bill.

With nearly a quarter of the USF’s $4.5 billion annual revenue diverted to the treasury, phone companies would either have to curtail efforts at rural broadband expansion, now proposed under USF reform efforts, or lobby for an increase in the amount of the fee to cover the diverted shortfall.

Telecom industry groups representing rural phone companies and local utility regulators blasted the proposal, saying it would destroy rural broadband expansion efforts underway by small independent and co-op phone companies.  The Universal Service Fund was designed to subsidize phone service in rural America to ensure equality of access and rates regardless of where Americans live. Without it, many rural phone companies face serious financial difficulties, especially as consumers increasingly look to providers to deliver broadband service.

“While we understand Congress is scrambling to resolve the deficit issue, our lawmakers should not tap into the Universal Service Fund as a last-minute solution. To divert these vital but limited funds from their intended use would be counterproductive and may undermine our national broadband goals,” said National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners president Tony Clark. “The Universal Service Fund is funded by fees consumers pay through their telephone company to ensure affordable access to telecommunications service across America. The Universal Service Fund receives no federal monies and should not even be under consideration in this debate.”

John Rose, president of the Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies (OPASTCO), called Cantor’s proposal “a totally new tax.”

The Federal Communications Commission has been working with state and local regulators, members of Congress, and rural telephone interests to transition the fund away from subsidizing basic telephone service, which is now ubiquitous in the United States, and towards a general purpose broadband rollout fund, to help provide capital to expand broadband service into communities deemed by larger providers as unprofitable to serve.

Some critics of the program suggest in its present form, it suffers from waste, fraud, and abuse.  Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) noted the original fund charged consumers less than five percent of their long distance bill, but subsequent increases have resulted in consumers paying up to 14%.  Stearns said more must be done to reduce the cost of the USF for consumers and has supported prior reform efforts.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Universal Service Fund – Cliff Stearns 11-18-09.flv[/flv]

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.)’s opening remarks in a 2009 hearing criticize the increasing costs consumers find on their phone bills for the Universal Service Fund.  (5 minutes)