Obama

In his State of the Union address last night to Congress, President Barack Obama complained that America’s digital infrastructure is inadequate to allow entrepreneurs and small businesses to successfully market their goods and services over the Internet.

“So much of America needs to be rebuilt. We’ve got crumbling roads and bridges, a power grid that wastes too much energy, an incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small-business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world.

During the Great Depression, America built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. After World War II, we connected our states with a system of highways. Democratic and Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today.

In the next few weeks, I will sign an executive order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.”

President Obama also touched on the problem of online piracy and imported counterfeit goods.  Last week, controversy over online piracy legislation including the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA), brought consumer opposition to both, temporarily shelving the measures.  But the president acknowledged the problem was not going away.

“It’s not right when another country lets our movies, music, and software be pirated,” he said. “Tonight, I’m announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit (TEU) that will be charged with investigating unfair trading practices in countries like China. There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders.”

Upton

Republicans fired back at the president over his rural broadband remarks, accusing the administration and the Federal Communications Commission of supporting pre-conditions on forthcoming spectrum auctions.  One House committee chairman tasked with broadband issues said the FCC was supporting policies that could reduce auction proceeds by reserving certain frequencies for up-and-coming wireless competitors or restrict how much spectrum a current market leader like AT&T or Verizon Wireless could acquire.

“The President said we have an incomplete high-speed broadband network, but his Federal Communications Commission is protecting its turf instead of joining us to free up airwaves to build the next generation communications networks,” said House Energy & Commerce Committee chairman Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.).

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski has had little regard for the House Republican-backed proposal that could potentially tie the FCC’s hands to set rules for spectrum auctions.  House Republicans also oppose setting aside certain spectrum for free, unlicensed high-power Wi-Fi use, preferring to auction as much spectrum as possible.

Earlier this month, Upton blasted the FCC chairman for opposing a “winner take all” auction approach:

“Bluster aside, it sounds like we have a federal agency more concerned about preserving its own power than offering serious improvements as we prepare to finalize this legislation. We worked with the FCC’s auction experts to give the agency the legitimate flexibility it needs to design the mechanics of the auction. It’s time to stop the FCC from engaging in political mischief that will hurt competition and steal money from the taxpayer’s coffers. Don’t take our word for it – look at the 2008 auction. The FCC imposed conditions on the C and D blocks that ultimately prevented the D-block from selling and pushed smaller carriers out of the auction. Taxpayers lost somewhere in the neighborhood of $5 billion, and spectrum remains sidelined. And speaking of protecting taxpayers, it’s time for the FCC and others to be honest about how taxpayers would be affected by their plans to give away valuable spectrum to favored constituencies. Our goal is to strike the right balance by keeping plenty of opportunity for unlicensed use without forcing taxpayers to forfeit any return on a resource that everyone agrees is worth billions.”

McDowell

Republican FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell is questioning whether Comcast misled the federal agency when the cable company acquired wireless spectrum it now says it had no intention of ever using.

McDowell was reacting to Comcast chief financial officer Michael Angelakis, who admitted this week his company really never had any interest in competing in the wireless space.

“Were they purchased under false pretenses?” McDowell asked.

Comcast has since sold their acquired spectrum to Verizon Wireless, which in Angelakis’ view makes sense.

“We never really intended to build that spectrum, so therefore it’s a really good use of that spectrum,” Angelakis said.

That admission puts Comcast in a difficult position, because FCC rules mandate that companies acquiring scarce wireless spectrum make a good faith effort to use it.  In McDowell’s view, had Comcast never intended to put the frequencies to use, the FCC probably would have disallowed the acquisition.

Verizon Wireless also plans to pick up unused spectrum originally acquired by Time Warner Cable in a deal that would let both companies cross-promote cable and wireless products and avoid head-on competition.

Both Comcast and Time Warner Cable have warehoused unused spectrum for several years.  Neither company appeared serious about building competing wireless networks, and with the spectrum off the market, would-be competitors couldn’t launch service either.

Verizon agreed to pay $3.6 billion to acquire the cable industry-owned spectrum, which it intends to use to bolster its LTE 4G network.

The FCC is now seeking public input on whether it should approve the spectrum sale. The Justice Department is also considering its antitrust implications.

Static isn't just for the UHF dial, it's for powerhouse lobbying groups, too.

While surface reporting on “white space” broadband and “super Wi-Fi” seem to suggest the United States is on the cusp of opening up much of the UHF television dial to wireless broadband, behind the scenes broadband advocates are fretting about being outmaneuvered by the powerful broadcast lobby.  The theory behind “white space” broadband seems simple enough.  Anyone who has flipped channels up and down the UHF dial sees a lot of unused real estate.  While most cities receive 5-10 UHF TV channels, there are dozens of apparently empty channels filled with what seems to be nothing at all. Can’t we make more efficient use of the UHF dial and open the excess to other uses?

The FCC has been studying just that, with the proposition that broadcasters could be relocated closer together or agree to sell their broadcast license and sign off the air for good.  Theoretically, the UHF dial would be reduced to channels 14-30.  Stations on channels 31-51 would have to relocate down the dial to make way for broadband.

That was the plan anyway

Naturally, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), the broadcast industry lobbying group, was not happy to learn of this plan, which is still heavily promoted by wireless telecommunications companies.  They quickly argued there were not enough UHF channels left to accommodate every TV station on the air today, and some cities bordering Canada faced losing major stations if the plan was adopted.

In the clash of the lobbying titans, it appears broadcasters have at least temporarily won the upper hand.  Legislation authored by the powerful House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.), would grant the FCC authority to conduct spectrum horse-trading and auctions, but only if the sales take “all reasonable efforts to preserve” the coverage area of impacted broadcast stations.

In the minds of several wireless broadband advocates, “reasonable efforts” kills it. That key passage is open to wide interpretation, which in Beltway language means a full employment program for Washington law firms who will end up letting a judge decide what “reasonable” really means.

Blair Levin

Blair Levin, an attorney who served as chief of staff to FCC Chairman Reed Hundt from 1993 to 1997, where he oversaw the implementation of the disastrous 1996 Telecom Act, is all sour grapes about the latest developments in Congress.  That is to be expected — he was once considered the Obama Administration’s chief “broadband czar.”

“The legislation ties the FCC’s hands in a variety of ways,” Levin tells TVNewsCheck. “It opens it up to litigation risk, which then, in conjunction with the other handcuffs, makes it difficult to pull off a successful auction. The nature of the bill dramatically increases the probability that there will be less spectrum recovered and less money for the [U.S.] Treasury.”

Broadcasters have been legitimately worried about where they might fit within the new, slimmed-down UHF dial.  The more broadcasters packed closer together, the greater the chance of interference and reduced signal coverage for those who happen to live between two cities sharing the same channel number.  The NAB has consistently opposed forcing station-owners’ hands and wants stations compensated for their costs and inconvenience.

Before the first “white space” broadband signal takes to the airwaves, the government will have to set aside at least $3 billion to defray expenses incurred by television stations moving down the dial.  With language that guarantees broadcasters won’t have to suffer from an interference nightmare, FCC engineers will have a much harder time finding enough channels for the number of stations that need to move.  That could mean fewer channel positions up for auction.

Blair believes stations can extract even more by playing the litigation threat card.

“Nobody wants to go to an auction when there is the threat of a judge anywhere having the ability of holding it up,” Blair said. “I believe a good lawyer could find a way to get the question of  whether the FCC took all reasonable efforts in front of a judge. If you are designing the auction and a big law firm shows up and says, ‘If you don’t take care of my single broadcaster, we are going to find a way to get to court.’ That’s a real threat.’’

The Lady Gaga problem

Lady Gaga's wireless microphone malfunction.

Assuming Washington can fling enough cash to soothe the nerves of worried broadcasters, impediments to white space broadband don’t stop with the local Fox station.  The next complication is the wireless microphone issue.  When you see Lady Gaga in her latest outrageous outfit, you probably are not noticing her wireless microphone.  Performers of all kinds use these low power devices that often work over unused UHF spectrum.  Only it may not be unused for long.

Spectrum Bridge, a “white space” database administrator charged with coordinating who is using what frequency for what purpose, understands the challenges of trying to keep track of TV reporters, bands on tour, and other wireless microphone users, who all expect an interference-free experience.  Electric companies and municipalities also plan to utilize white space spectrum to manage smart city and smart grid communications.  A year later, Super Wi-Fi applications that deliver longer distance Wi-Fi service are expected to arrive.

It’s becoming a crowded neighborhood.

Congress’ NAB-friendly, Republican-sponsored bill may be modified substantially in a Democratic-controlled Senate, and there is still plenty of time for lobbyists to work their magic.  But it’s safe to say that those who have waited at least seven years for white space broadband to become a reality will have to wait a little longer.

While you ponder Verizon Wireless’ latest LTE 4G outage or try to convince yourself Sprint really is selling “4G” service from Clearwire, South Korea’s Sunkyoung Telecom (SK Telecom) is deploying new technology to enormously boost wireless Internet speeds to as high as 100Mbps.

SK Telecom has developed new Heterogeneous Network Integration Solution (HNIS) technology that weds 3G/4G service with any open Wi-Fi network to deliver speeds many times faster than North Americans can get from their wireless providers.  The technology is designed to work without a lot of consumer intervention.  For example, HNIS will automatically provision open Wi-Fi access wherever subscribers travel.  The combination of mobile broadband with Wi-Fi works seamlessly as well.  Currently, smartphones can use Wi-Fi or mobile data, but not both at the same time.  HNIS changes that.

While mobile operators cope with spectrum and capacity issues, HNIS can reduce the load on wireless networks, without creating a hassle for wireless customers who used to register with every Wi-Fi service they encountered.  The theoretical speed of an HNIS-enhanced 3G and Wi-Fi connection in South Korea will be 60Mbps when SK Telecom fully deploys the technology this year.  As SK expands the technology to its 4G networks, theoretical maximum speeds will increase to 100Mbps.

SK is so confident in the technology, it plans to equip all of its smartphones with the new technology starting in 2013.

Byun Jae-Woan, CTO of SK Telecom said, “SK Telecom will provide customers with a data service of much greater speed with Heterogeneous Network Integration Solution, which represents one of the company’s world’s top-level network operation technologies. By realizing the speed of fixed-line services with wireless networks, SK Telecom will allow its customers to experience a new and innovative mobile life.”

Operators like AT&T are installing their own Wi-Fi hotspots in heavy use areas to try and offload data traffic to Wi-Fi.  But customers have to make the connection themselves. HNIS quietly handles this process in the background while staying in touch with SK’s 3G and 4G networks to maintain a consistent data connection.

"Hey, we're #19!"

The United States may be a leader in many things, but broadband isn’t one of them. The country has now fallen two more positions — to 19th place, behind South Korea, Sweden, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and even Iceland, since the Berkman Center for Internet and Society released its last rankings in 2009.

In 2004, President George W. Bush complained about the U.S. falling to 10th place, which he declared was “ten spots too low.”

Now eastern Europe and former Soviet Republics in the Baltics threaten to overtake the United States, and countries in southeast Asia already have.  Innovation in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand means deploying fiber to the home service to the vast majority of the population.  Innovation in North America means conjuring up new pricing schemes to raise prices on broadband service and engage in competition-busting mergers and acquisitions.

But a USA Today editorial this week also places much of the blame on corporate influence inside Washington, which has promulgated legislative policies that favor telecommunications companies and throw customers under the bus.

“The simple answer is that other countries have policies that promote competition and innovation,” the editors write. “In contrast, policies here have allowed a few dominant players that control the least interesting parts of the broadband landscape (the cables and the wireless spectrum) to dominate.”

Indeed, a series of telecommunications laws enacted by Congress, combined with short-sighted policies at the Federal Communications Commission, have allowed a handful of super-sized players to own and control broadband service in America, resulting in providers establishing non-competing fiefdoms that avoid head-on competition.

The worst policy of all allowed broadband providers to keep competitors from reaching customers over existing broadband networks.  During the days of dial-up, you could purchase Internet access from the phone company, a large provider like MSN or AOL, or thousands of smaller regional and local service providers.  Simply dial a local access number and you were connected to the provider of your choice.  Now, U.S. law gives broadband network operators the right to restrict these independents from selling service over their networks.  Comcast need not sell anything other than Comcast Internet.  Frontier Communications can make a killing selling its own DSL service, while protecting that revenue from other Internet Service Providers who might sell the service over Frontier’s network for half the price.  Time Warner Cable voluntarily allows Earthlink and a handful of other companies to sell cable broadband service over its infrastructure, but at prices equal to or higher than what Time Warner charges itself.

Broadband providers argue that allowing competitors to sell service on their network would discourage future investment and rob shareholders a return on investments already made.  Today, major cable operators and phone companies are falling all over themselves denying they are in anything but the broadband business.  It has become an enormously lucrative enterprise, more profitable than television or telephone service.

USA Today compares the broadband landscape back home with that in South Korea — perennially the world’s fastest, and considerably less expensive than what North Americans pay for service:

South Korea has made broadband a national priority, mandating deployment and in some cases giving private companies incentives to build out. It has also prevented major players from monopolizing their businesses, encouraging competition and innovation. In South Korea, consumers can get broadband service from a cable or telecom company. But they may also choose among myriad independent providers that are given access to the physical infrastructure. This competition keeps prices down and the quality of service high.

[…] But over time, cable and telecom companies worked the courts and Congress to make sure that this competitive world would never come to be [in the United States]. […] Wireless is a bit better. But the market has remained a near duopoly, with none of the smaller players emerging as a strong competitor to AT&T and Verizon.

The same open network concept has fought its way forward in Canada (where Bell has worked furiously to sabotage the business plans of independent providers) and in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand where all three governments have decided the best solution would be to scrap the ancient landline network and start fresh with an open-to-all-comers fiber to the home service.

Back home in the States it is business as usual with increasing broadband prices and the looming prospect of usage-limiting schemes designed to cut capital costs, monetize broadband usage, and stop cord-cutting.

The opposing point of view comes courtesy of dollar-a-holler, corporate-backed think tank The Heartland Institute, who is stuck quoting notorious industry-funded studies and think tanks like the Discovery Institute and the Technology Policy Institute:

The idea that European and Asian countries are lapping America in the race for broadband speed and penetration is a fallacy created with statistics comparing “persons” instead of “households.” Once you make that correction, the USA is firmly planted among the top of industrialized nations, as economist Scott Wallsten pointed out when he was a staffer at the Federal Communications Commission in 2009.

And as tech researcher Bret Swanson of Entropy Economics points out, if you measure Internet usage by gigabytes used per month — a better measure of the speed and utility of networks — the USA has nearly lapped Western Europe once and Asia twice.

Heartland Institute: "By not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue."

If you measure how many mouse clicks customers in New York make on a Thursday afternoon, we could be number one as well!  Gigabytes used per month does not measure the speed or price of service on broadband networks, considerations that actually do impact broadband rankings.

Mr. Wallsten is a familiar favorite go-to-guy for The Heartland Institute.  He’s also the choice of Time Warner Cable, who paid him $20,000 for a 2010 essay: “The Future of Digital Communications Research and Policy.”

There is big money to be made writing corporate-funded research reports.  Bret Swanson knows that very well, having been involved with the Discovery Institute, a “research group” that delivers paid, “credentialed” reports to telecommunications company clients who waive them before Congress to support their positions.  Swanson is also a “Visiting Fellow” at Arts+Labs/Digital Society, which counted as its “partners” AT&T and Verizon.

The gentleman from Heartland also quotes from the misnamed “Progressive Policy Institute,” which counts among its funding partners, AT&T.

It would have been probably easier (but ineffectively transparent) to simply quote from AT&T and Comcast directly.

The Heartland Institute, unsurprisingly, believes letting existing broadband providers deliver service exactly the way they want is the best option:

The digital economy — one of the only vibrant economic sectors left — doesn’t need more government “investment” or regulation. It needs only for government to butt out and let the market work the magic that continues to bring us the marvels of the modern age.

That magic will cost you $50 a month and rising.  If some providers have their way, while the rest of the world abandons usage caps, American providers can’t wait to slap them on, reducing the value of your service even further.