This item from Tech Web discusses the announcement yesterday by Boston Mayor Tomas Menino of a task force to come up with a plan to bring Wi-Fi to Boston. Menino named three business executives to co-chair the task force, Menino named three business leaders to co-chair a committee to study the issue: James I. Cash Jr., a Microsoft director and former Harvard Business School professor; venture capitalist Rick Burnes, who is a director of the Boston Foundation; and Joyce Plotkin, president of the Massachusetts Technology Leadership Council.
The task force is slated to issue its findings by summer. Meanwhile, local non-profit group, The Boston Foundation, is preparing to issue its own report on city-wide Wi-Fi in Boston.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 5:07 PM | Print | Comments (0)
Yesterday President Bush signed legislation setting 2/28/09 as a hard date for return of analog broadcast spectrum and allocating up to $1.5 billion to help fund digital-to-analog converters for owners of analog-only TV sets.
Coming just a few days after Senate Commerce Committee hearings on net neutrality, this milestone in the decades-long digital TV spectrum saga got me thinking how the broadcast spectrum transition relates to the broader transition underway in the media and telecom industries.
Specifically, it got me wondering how broadcast spectrum—which is arguably underutilized and has attractive propagation characteristics—can be used to create more facilities-based competition, which many believe is the best solution for the underlying problems net neutrality advocates are concerned about.
While there are clear potential benefits from the current plans to auction 60 MHz in the 700 MHz band (under the bill, this would occur 1/28/08) and assign another 24 MHz to public safety applications, a paper authored by J. H. (Jim) Snider, Research Director of the New America Foundation’s (NAF) Wireless Future Program, argues that there’s still a lot more untapped value that can be extracted from the huge swath of spectrum broadcasters have controlled for decades.
Specifically, says Snider, it’s possible (and desirable) to use spectrum in the still-underutilized digital broadcast band (channels 2-51, much of it in the 500-600 MHz range) for unlicensed provision of broadband access services, without interfering with broadcasters’ digital TV signals.
Broadcasters, not surprisingly, disagree with Snider’s conclusion on the interference question. Snider and his colleagues respond to broadcast industry arguments here and here.
If Snider’s view holds water technically, this has potentially big implications for the broadband policy debate and the future competitive dynamics of the broadband access market. According to a recent study by Free Press and NAF, depending on the local market, there’s somewhere between 100 and 250 MHz of available “white space” (unused spectrum that can be used for low-power unlicensed applications without problematic interference with digital broadcast signals) within the digital broadcast spectrum (Chs. 2-51). A highly-cellularized, strongly propagating but low-power-consuming wireless platform could presumably deliver a whole lot of bandwidth using 100-250 MHz. And it could probably do so pretty cost-effectively if it followed the cost-reduction curve that has characterized WiFi and other unlicensed standards-based radio devices.
While more rural markets tend to have more available spectrum (e.g., 248 MHz in Fargo, ND), the study found that even major metro markets like Boston, San Francisco and Dallas have as much as 114-120 MHz of vacant DTV spectrum that could be used for low-power unlicensed applications.
Below are some excerpts from Snider’s paper, entitled “Reclaiming the Vast Wasteland: The Economic Case for Re-Allocating To Unlicensed Service The Unused Spectrum (White Space) Between TV Channels 2 and 51.” I’d strongly recommend it to anyone who cares about expanding broadband capacity, availability and competition.
[E]ven after channels 52 to 69 are returned, substantial guard band spectrum will remain, especially in small TV markets, on the 49 channels from channels 2 to 51. The difference is that these freed up channels will not be contiguous. For example, an unused channel in Baltimore may be in use in the adjacent markets of Washington, DC and Philadelphia.
Until recently, it was thought that non-contiguous spectrum allocations would have very little economic value—just like forty scattered quarter acre real estate parcels may be less valuable for commercial development than a contiguous ten acre lot. Why would a manufacturer want to produce a wireless device that couldn’t be used nationally? How would it be possible to make a portable spectrum using device that would work in Baltimore on a particular channel but wouldn’t work in Philadelphia on the same channel, even if transported there? Accordingly, the guard band channels that would continue to be allotted market-by-market in Swiss cheese fashion after the digital TV transition generated relatively little commercial interest.
However, the technological environment has rapidly changed. With the advent of low-power, “smart radios” providing broadband service, the ability of localized wireless broadband operators to utilize non-contiguous spectrum has dramatically increased. High-tech companies, including Intel and Microsoft, have used their substantial technological and economic credibility to argue that such “smart radios” are the perfect application for this Swiss cheese guard band spectrum.
The unused TV spectrum occupies the low frequencies. The best use of low frequency spectrum is for broadband, not broadcast service. Licensed spectrum works well for high-power broadband service, but not for low-power broadband service within public or private real property lines. Fundamental forces are driving the world toward wireless networks constituted of low-power devices, such as home WiFi, enterprise WiFi, municipal WiFi and highway WiFi. Therefore, the white space should be allocated to unlicensed, low-power service.Posted by Mitch Shapiro at 5:04 PM | Print | Comments (0)
In a blistering critique more characteristic of a bare-knuckles political campaign rather than a dispassionate regulatory pronouncement, the FCC today issued a report on the a la carte sale of cable programming. As part of Chairman Kevin Martin’s push to get cable operators to sell channels on a network-by-network basis rather than in bundles, the report concludes that consumers are better off if they can buy channels on a one-off basis.
The conclusion is no surprise given Martin’s indecency-driven campaign to get cable to restructure its program offerings so that only family-rated programming ever makes it into the home. (For more on Martin’s indecency campaign see here and here). What is surprising is the unusual language the FCC uses in disparaging a study conducted by Booz Allen on behalf of the cable industry. This study was the cornerstone of the FCC’s earlier decision, under a Michael Powell-led Commission, that consumers would be made worse off under a mandatory a la carte regime.
In the press release announcing its report, the Commission accuses Booz Allen of errors, “bias” and unrealistic assumptions and uses locutions that are…well, downright nasty for this sort of thing.
The Further Report reexamines the conclusions and underlying assumptions of the earlier Media Bureau report on a la carte submitted to Congress in November 2004 (“2004 Report”). In particular, the Further Report describes a number of errors in the Booz Allen Hamilton (“Booz Allen”) Study that the Media Bureau relied upon to support the conclusion of the earlier report that a la carte is not economical. The Further Report finds that the 2004 report also relied upon unrealistic assumptions and presented biased analysis in concluding that a la carte “would not produce the desired result of lower MVPD rates for most pay-television households.” The Further Report identifies mistaken calculations in the Booz Allen Study, which was originally submitted by the cable industry for Commission consideration. Booz Allen itself acknowledges the errors, which other economists also have confirmed. The Further Report explains that the Booz Allen Study failed to net out the cost of broadcast stations when calculating the average cost per cable channel under a la carte. As a result, the Booz Allen Study overstated the average price per cable channel by more than 50 percent.
To the average reader the preceding passage may not seem out-of-the-ordinary, but having participated as a research analyst (admittedly on behalf of the cable industry) in countless FCC rulemakings and regulatory reviews, I know from deep experience that the Commission doesn’t usually throw this kind of mud at anyone, much less an independent research outfit.
The question is: why get so nasty? The FCC could have arrived at its conclusions that consumers are better off with a la carte networks without being so mean.
While Martin’s motivation for a la carte is spurred on by “family values” advocates, many of which hold religious objections to some networks that come bundled in cable packages, at least one religious network has already derided the FCC’s conclusions and contends that Martin’s underlying “values-based” objective won’t be achieved with a la carte.
In a press release, the Inspiration Network’s EVP of Sales Rod Tapp said:
A pay-per-channel system would not accomplish the removal of obscenity from television. It won’t even help sift out unsuitable programming for our families. On the contrary, it could represent the death knell for much of the wholesome programming available today from smaller independent channels like The Inspiration Networks.Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 11:56 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Business Week online has this interesting profile of an IPTV industry star: Janice Lee of PCCW. The 35 year-old Lee joined Hong Kong telco PCCW four years ago and has propelled the company to the top of the video-over-IP world by building a business that counts 500,000 IPTV paying customers.
Lee has done it with a combination of marketing savvy and simplicity. The service, delivered over broadband phone lines, offers nearly 100 channels. Customers can pick channels one by one rather than buy broad packages, as with rival services. And she has been adding interactive features, giving viewers the chance to vote in polls or reserve movie tickets via TV. The goal is to keep kids from losing interest in the staid old boob tube. “Young people are moving to the Internet, and we have to respond,” she says.
Lee’s entrepreneurship has attracted some big time investors to PCCW — in late-January Newbridge Capital LLC made a bid to buy 6% of the telco for $125 mil. One of her great accomplishments: persuading the Hollywood studios to sell their films over the DSL and fiber-enabled connections offered by PCCW by selling them on the tightness of PCCW’s DRM technology.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 11:17 AM | Print | Comments (0)
The blog that Apple loves to hate, Think Secret, has some big news today: Apple is gearing up to release a major revision to its 5G video-capable iPod.
Slated for release in March or April, this new iPod will be a killer video platform, with a 3.5 inch diagonal display that will occupy the entire front face of the device. The new iPod will also abandon the mechanical click wheel for a touch screen.
The ThinkSecret folks are very definitive on this development. If it’s true, then Apple, which is already rising like a rocket in the mobile video world, will enter some other realm of success. As revolutionary as the current video iPod has been, a new iPod that offers even better viewing capability will probably fly off the shelves even faster and generate even more per-download video sales for TV and film producers.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 11:07 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Blogs We Read
