From the Guardian, here's an editorial I wrote on our responsibility, within a civil society, to provide universal broadband access:

Life, liberty and connectivity for all

Internet access is more than a commodity – it's a public good. The US should seize the opportunity to invest in broadband

We live in a civil society – a place where primary education is freely available to all, where anyone can enjoy a walk through our public parks or down our sidewalks and freely drive through the streets. Libraries across the country loan out books for free – literature that you can read on a spring day in our parks or beneath the streetlights on main street on a warm summer's evening. You don't have to tip the firemen who show up at your house or pay for police protection – in a civil society, public safety is freely available to everyone.

We enjoy myriad services and resources that we don't pay for each and every time we use them. Yet each of these key facets of contemporary society was part of a new social contract, often adopted only after years of battle and turmoil to overcome a prior status quo (from private fire and educational services to for-fee libraries and parks). Eventually, however, new models are seen to provide such an enormous benefit to the entire population that we're willing to invest in ideas that lift all boats. We realise that, as a society, each of us is better off when certain basic services are freely available to all.

At the dawn of the digital era, during this first decade of the 21st century, the most important new commodity is internet access. A growing canon of research has documented the enormous benefits that accrue to those with broadband access (and the increasing detriments faced by those without it). Within many civil societies, in much the same way the agrarian revolution helped eliminate famine, the industrial revolution brought manufactured goods into everyone's lives and the computer era integrated machines (from laptops to PDAs and cell phones to iPods) into our daily regimes, connectivity is the currency of the information age. A new social contract that includes connectivity for all is not a particularly expensive endeavour – free broadband for everyone for life would cost a tiny fraction of the cost of the Wall Street bail-out and far less than the expense of one year of our war in Iraq.

Today's politicians, from municipal representatives to President-elect Barack Obama, are actively supporting broadband buildouts. Current debates over the economic stimulus package place nationwide internet infrastructure development as a key component of the intervention. An optimal free broadband system would include both wireless (for mobility and cost efficiency) and wireline (for capacity and reliability) components. And, as it turns out, two proposals are currently pending that could make free broadband connectivity for life a reality.

The first is an innovative public interest obligation on licensed spectrum. Since we already own the public airwaves (over which everything from television signals to FM radio is broadcast), as landlords, we can set the rental conditions. Every time a mobile phone company, TV broadcaster or other entity receives a license from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) it comes with conditions. Earlier this year, the FCC auctioned off a small portion of the 700 MHz spectrum for $19.6bn. Sadly, of that sum, zero dollars went to support free broadband. But if a small portion of spectrum auction revenues had been earmarked for free broadband for all, we would already be well on our way toward universal connectivity.

Currently, a small piece of spectrum (2155-2175 MHz) is up for license, and the conditions being proposed include providing free broadband connectivity for everyone in the US. One company in particular, M2Z Networks, has been vocally advocating to license this piece of the public airwaves with this condition. However, M2Z faces fierce competition from telecom incumbents like T-mobile, and the plan is currently stalled at the FCC.

But financial support and spectrum licensure reforms are not enough on their own. A multi-faceted solution is needed. Fuel-efficiency and car-safety standards have helped shape today's national transportation grid, but the US had to make a major public investment in the infrastructure itself. Broadband poses a similar opportunity.

Building the 21st-Century Information Superhighway is a proposal synthesised by the New America Foundation in consultation with numerous interested parties that would create a national information superhighway, providing fibre capacity to cities, towns and rural areas throughout the US. At its core, the idea is very simple: each time we rip up, repave or build a road, we should also lay fibre infrastructure along that route that anyone can use. Over the next half-decade, this initiative would create a web of connectivity – a critical new infrastructure for the digital age. Across the country, communities, internet service providers and municipalities are engaging in demand-side aggregation, but lack entree to affordable internet access, a bottleneck that this proposal solves.

Residents in places like Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and St Cloud, Florida already receive free broadband. Groups like Tribal Digital Village and the CUWiN Foundation have been building free networks to serve local communities for years. There are thousands of networks all around the globe providing free connectivity to participants. In the US, we have an opportunity to implement broadband solutions that dramatically improve the lives of everyone living in the country. The question, therefore, is whether this new administration has the gumption to create a "broadband Apollo project" to maximise the potential and possibility of the information age.

Folks over at Computer Power User magazine recently interviewed me for their December 2008 issue. Here's the teaser:

Technically Speaking

Interview With Sascha Meinrath, Research Director, New American Foundation Wireless Future Program

From: www.computerpoweruser.com
February 2009 • Vol.9 Issue 2
Page(s) 102-104 in print issue


Sascha Meinrath is the research director of the New America Foundation’s Wireless Future Program and coordinates the Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative. He is an expert on municipal broadband, community wireless networks, and telecommunications policy. He blogs regularly at www.saschameinrath.com.

by Barry Brenesal

CPU: This month, it’ll have been legally mandated that all high-power television broadcasts in the United States will be digital, between 54 and 698MHz. Because TV stations have “guard bands” separating broadcast frequencies, there are so-called “white spaces” between many channels. They’ve fueled a furious debate over who will control all this prime broadcast real estate. In early November 2008, the FCC finally ruled in favor of those who wanted unlicensed public access.

Meanwhile, referring to the furious debate that was waged for years over this issue, a former chief engineer of the FCC, Ed Thomas, described it as “basically a lobbying food fight.” Do you consider that a fair description?

Meinrath: Certainly on one side, you have lobbyists for the National Association of Broadcasters, and on the other side, for Microsoft and Google. But you also have a lot of community organizers, advocates, public interest groups, consumer rights groups, and WISPs (wireless Internet service providers) fighting beside high-tech industry. So while a lobbying food fight places things in its simplest terms, there’s a much larger coalition on the side fighting for white space devices. It’s also the case that if it was....

On January 9th, I'll be speaking on what is certain to be an insightful and entertaining panel over at Google DC headquarters. We'll be highlighting some of the new thinking over at New America and contemplating public policy interventions during the next years of the Obama administration. I'm very much looking forward to swapping notes with Craig, Mindy, Ellen, and Nick. Should be an exceedingly fun time. Join us if you can -- here's more.

Wiki White House: Can Obama Use Technology to Transform Government?

Technology evangelists believe that Barack Obama has the potential to fundamentally alter communication between the presidency and the people. Wikis in the White House? Online public comments on legislation? A real-time two-way conversation between citizens and their elected officials?

For better or worse, however, nothing is as easy as it might seem. Federal regulations, First Amendment issues, and just plain common sense are going to slow-- and potentially stagnate-- technological innovation in Washington.

The New America Foundation and Wired Magazine will host a discussion of what can, should, and must change when the Obama administration takes the reins.

Friday, January 9, 2009
12:00pm - 1:30pm

Lunch will be provided

Google DC
1101 New York Avenue, NW
2nd Floor
Entrance on Eye Street
Washington, DC 20001

Featured Speakers:

Craig Newmark
Customer Service Representative and Founder
craigslist

Mindy Finn
Director of E-Strategy
Mitt Romney for President

Ellen Miller
Executive Director
Sunlight Foundation

Sascha Meinrath
Research Director, Wireless Futures Program
New America Foundation

Moderator
Nicholas Thompson
Fellow, New America Foundation
Senior Editor, Wired Magazine

Co-sponsored by New America Foundation, Wired Magazine, and Google

To RSVP for this event, click on the red button or go to the event page:
http://www.newamerica.net/events/2008/wiki_white_house

For questions, contact Stephanie Gunter at (202) 986-2700 x315 or gunter@newamerica.net

Here in Los Angeles where the weather is fine and the USC marching band does a earsplitting cheer and big brass wake-up call at 6am on the day of a football game. Due to time zone changes, I was already well awake -- but it was a bit surreal all the same. Meanwhile, we're gearing up for today's Internet for Everyone Town Hall meeting (more info below) where we'll be discussing consumer choice, openness on the Internet, affordability and access, and a host of other areas.

My role is going to be to take feedback from the audience and translate it into themes -- since we're expecting 150-200 people, it'll be interesting to see how quickly we can collect note cards, organize them, and provide useful aggregation. Here's more on the Internet for Everyone Town Hall meeting -- if you're in the LA area, feel free to stop on by:

For Immediate Release

Contact:
Jen Howard, InternetforEveryone.org, (202) 265-1490 x22 or (703) 517-6273
Lindsy Embree, InternetforEveryone.org, (630) 292-8347 (in Los Angeles)

TOMORROW: L.A. to Address Digital Divide at Interactive Town Hall
Rep. Maxine Waters to speak at public forum aimed at making Internet for everyone a national priority

WASHINGTON -- Tomorrow, InternetforEveryone.org -- a broad-based initiative to connect every American to a fast, open and affordable Internet -- will hold a town hall meeting in Los Angeles to discuss the digital divide. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) will address hundreds of participants at the interactive forum, the first in a nationwide series of public conversations about making universal Internet access a top priority of the Obama administration and new Congress.

WHAT: InternetforEveryone.org Town Hall Meeting
WHEN: Saturday, Dec. 6, 12:30 - 5:30 p.m. PT
WHERE: The Radisson at the University of Southern California, 3540 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles

High-speed Internet, or "broadband," is becoming a crucial public necessity -- with unprecedented social, economic and educational potential. But more than 40 percent of all U.S. homes are not connected to the Internet or use slow "dial-up" technology. In California, more than 16 million residents can't access or afford a high-speed Internet connection, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

"High-speed Internet is one of the most transformative technologies in human history," said Timothy Karr, campaign director of Free Press, the organizer of InternetforEveryone.org. "Yet millions of Americans across the country are being left behind in the digital world. Los Angeles' diverse and talented community offers the perfect place to kick off the push for Internet in every home and business in America."

InternetforEveryone.org is supported by more than 120 public interest organizations and industry groups, including: ACLU, American Library Association, BitTorrent, blip.tv, Center for Rural Affairs, Children Now, Computer & Communications Industry Association, Consumer Electronics Association, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Credo Mobile, Ebay.com, EDUCAUSE, Facebook.com, Free Press, Future of Music Coalition, Google, Green For All, InterActiveCorp, Media Alliance, National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, National Hispanic Media Coalition, National Organization for Women, Native Public Media, New America Foundation, One Economy, OneWebDay, Participatory Culture Foundation, Public Knowledge, Skype, Sunlight Foundation, TechNet, TechRepublican, United Church of Christ, U.S. PIRG, Vuze, Writers Guild of America-East, Writers Guild of America-West, and YouTube, amongst others.

For more information, visit www.InternetforEveryone.org

My colleague, Victor Pickard, and I drafted up this quick essay for the Internet for Everyone Campaign. The notion is, if we're going to get serious about affordable broadband, we need to serious address the lack of meaningful competition among broadband service providers. Here's more:

The Internet is not a luxury, it is a necessity. As a lifeline to crucial resources for millions of American families, businesses, educational institutions, and municipalities, high-speed Internet should no longer be considered a commodity, but rather a critical utility on par with water and electricity. Our national policies should reflect the importance of connectivity and prioritize universal affordable access for all. But instead, many policymakers have looked on while our international ranking for Internet adoption has plummeted, leaving millions of Americans offline.

Our current path leads inevitably to a tiered society, one divided along unequal opportunities for education and work, as well as access to arts, culture, and a higher quality of life. This divide runs exactly counter to the ideal of the American Dream. According to this vision, our nation was not designed to maintain an aristocracy and a permanent underclass, but was supposed to be a meritocracy where anyone could succeed and everyone was given the tools they needed to create a better life for themselves and their families.

Universal broadband should be a national imperative, particularly for rural, low-income, and other underserved areas. As the Internet rapidly becomes the platform for a growing percentage of all media, broadband connectivity serves as the critical infrastructure of the 21st century. It is too precious a resource to be solely overseen by an oligopoly of profit-driven corporations who care for their bottom line first and foremost. Our lack of foresight and attention to ongoing digital divides harms our economy and future prospects not just among marginalized constituencies within the United States, but also in relation to our international competitiveness.

Unfortunately, in too many markets across the U.S., people are at the mercy of duopolies, granted a choice between one cable provider and one telephone company for their Internet services. This lack of choice and competition is the key reason why broadband services in the U. S. have lagged behind a growing number of other industrialized countries and why customer service has been so remarkably substandard where broadband connectivity is available. This massive market failure largely accounts for the fact that Americans typically pay twice as much (and often 1000% as much) for half the speeds compared to people in other countries. In 2008, a 100 megabit per second symmetric connection in the U.S. is likely to cost hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars per month. This compares with $25/month in Japan, $32/month in South Korea, and $35/month in Hong Kong. And it’s not just Asian countries who are pulling rapidly ahead of the U.S. In Sweden and Romania, open access networks have created vibrant competitive markets, dropping the pricing for 100 Mbps symmetric lines to $16/month in Stockholm and $11/month in Bucharest. Imagine if you could get broadband connectivity that is an order of magnitude faster for a tiny fraction of the price. This pattern is borne out in a growing list of countries—where competition is fostered, pricing drops and broadband speeds increase dramatically.

The U.S. has thus far failed to grasp this lesson, but it doesn’t have to be this way. If the U.S. government elevates affordable Internet access to a top priority and expands open access infrastructure requirements, all Americans will have an opportunity to better their lives and pay prices equivalent to many other countries. The U.S. government must create the same conditions that other countries have fostered—anything less will ensure that the price-gouging of American consumers will continue. Buildout of open access wireline infrastructures and increased unlicensed access to the public airwaves is the logical place to start. In addition to fostering increased competition, an open internet architecture needs to be protected by maintaining interoperability, network neutrality, and non-proprietary protocols. Taken together, these measures will help ensure an open, affordable Internet that is available to all.

Hi everyone, my name is Steven Mansour. Sascha and I work together on a number of projects and initiatives, including Acorn Active Media and the International Summit for Community Wireless Networks.

In addition to technology policy and infrastructure issues, I also have interests in e-Learning, knowledge transfer, virtual / augmented reality, user interface design and immersive social networking. I'm always excited to learn about new and novel ways in which these diverse fields can come together to aid in solving complex social, economic or academic problems.

Here is my first post at Sascha's blog - cross-posted at my own website at stevenmansour.com - about 9 games I recommend to my non-gamer friends.

Yesterday, I had the joys of getting one of my non-gamer friends hooked on a game. Getting to watch Mir laugh and stumble through building a lattice to make a bridge for a bunch of wobbly goo balls to cross over was totally worth the teensy $20 I paid for World of Goo.

People who were weaned mostly on games as children, rather than other forms of media - Saturday morning cartoons, sci-fi movies, dungeons and dragons - continue to approach problems from a different perspective as they move into adulthood. For example, we tend to interpret architecture and industrial design different, after subconsciously studying the worlds we previously walked through, built from the imagination of the game creator's mind. There are other nuances within gaming, of course, such as the type of games played (educational, sandbox, interactive storytelling, entertainment, etc), as well as within the different [constantly changing] genres of games - first person, strategic, puzzle, and others.

Whether I'm having a conversation about politics, technology or society with someone, the ideas that get thrown around between people who are (or were at some point) at least moderately invested in gaming tend to take on a distinctly more constructivist approach. This often leads to a more holistic understanding of not only the topic at hand but also the other person's stance on the issue. I take for granted that not everyone I deal with is/was a gamer, and so I often find myself expressing frustration at concepts and context that I assume are common knowledge, when in fact, they aren't. Of course, this reflects more on me being an occasional insensitive douchebag than on them lacking any knowledge. What follows is a list for these people (people who don't play video games, not people who think I'm a douchebag - their list is long enough as it is).

Continue reading »

Hello readers, my name is Benjamin Lennett, and I work with Sascha at the New America Foundation's Wireless Future Program as well as contribute to the foundation's Open Technology Initiative (OTI).

Last week, OTI, along with Iarla Flynn, European Policy Manager for Google, submitted a filing to Ireland's Spectrum Policy Consultation . The document, A Technology Driven Spectrum Policy, lays out a new vision for Ireland's Spectrum Policy in the 21st Century. The document focuses on encouraging unlicensed access and cognitive radio technology to promote a more efficient, flexible, open, and inclusive approach to spectrum management.

The following is a summary of the filing:

A Unique Opportunity for Ireland

Ireland is in a unique and enviable position. Its geographic locations and relative lack of congestion in most spectrum bands, provide Ireland with the flexibility and freedom to become a policy innovator in spectrum management, allowing it to quickly reallocate valuable spectrum to further advanced wireless telecommunications and broadband, while also encouraging technological innovation and experimentation.

Spectrum policy has largely developed under an assumption of scarcity, and therefore the need to ration spectrum access as means to prevent interference among users. This has resulted in a policy framework that placed state authorities in Ireland and elsewhere in the role of hands-on managers of national spectrum resources.

But, the reality is that spectrum under current management frameworks is substantially underutilized. An independent analysis of usage in the centre of Dublin (in 2007) highlights that average use across the primary spectrum bands was less than 14 percent. In addition, technological advancements in wireless communications are fundamentally changing how we can manage access to spectrum, providing for more equitable and efficient use of this public resource. "Smart" or "cognitive radio" technologies and the shift from analog to digital for various services (e.g. terrestrial TV and public safety services) provide a timely opportunity to reallocate significant blocks of spectrum for new uses and services.

The switch over to Digital Television (DTT) provides a tremendous opportunity for Ireland to re-envision its spectrum policies and reallocate valuable spectrum for advanced communication uses and technologies. The challenge for Ireland is to develop a broad-based spectrum policy that ensures all Irish citizens can access the benefits of this public communications resource.

Read more...

Continue reading »

My good friend, Marvin Ammori, is hosting the University of Nebraska Space & Telecom Law Program's Telecom and Space Conference in DC tomorrow. It's an all-star lineup and certain to contain a good amount of interesting debate. I'll be there for an afternoon panel and look forward to the day's discussions.

“Looking Back at the Past Eight Years, Looking Toward the Next Four”

November 13, 2008
Washington Court Hotel
525 New Jersey Avenue
Washington, D.C.

8:45 a.m. Welcome (Matt Schaefer, Director, UNL Space & Telecom Law Program)

8:50 a.m. Opening Remarks FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein

9:00 a.m. Morning Keynote Discussion
* Richard Wiley, Partner, Wiley Rein, former Chairman, FCC
* Ben Scott, Policy Director, Free Press
* Cecilia Kang, Washington Post (moderator)

10:00-11:00 a.m. Wireless Issues
* Fred Campbell, President, Wireless Communications Association & former Wireless Bureau Chief, FCC
* William Webb, Head, Ofcom Research & Development (U.K.)
* Terri Natoli, Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs, Clearwire
* Robert Pepper, Cisco (invited)

11:20 a.m. - 12:20 p.m. Network Neutrality
* Marvin Ammori, Professor of Law, U. of Nebraska College of Law & former General Counsel, Free Press (moderator)
* Frannie Wellings, Telecom Counsel, US Sen. Byron Dorgan
* Rebecca Arbogast, Principal, Stifel Nicolaus,
* Markham Erickson, Executive Director, Open Internet Coalition
* James Cicconi, Senior Executive Vice President-External and Legislative Affairs, AT&T

12:30 p.m. Lunch

2:00-3:00 p.m. International Issues
* Tricia Paoletta, Harris, Wiltshire, & Grannis
* Ambassador Richard Russell, US Ambassador to ITU WRC-07
* Helen Domenici, International Bureau Chief, FCC
* Jonathan McHale, USTR

3:20-4:20 p.m. Broadband Policy/Universal Access
* Sascha Meinrath, Research Director, Wireless Future Program at the New America Foundation (moderator)
* Derek Turner, Research Director, Free Press
* Christopher Libertelli, Director of Government and Regulatory Affairs, Skype
* Link Hoewing, Vice President – Public Policy Development and Corporate Responsibility, Verizon
* Scott Reiter, Director of Industry Affairs, National Telecommunications Cooperative Association—The Voice of Rural Telecommunications

New America Foundation is hosting a Q&A with Eric Schmidt in DC on November 18, 2008 at 1pm. Thought some of my readers might be interested in attending (and hopefully asking some good questions). If you're not in town, it will also be webcast live. More info and RSVP at: http://www.newamerica.net/events/2008/eric_schmidt

Here's the brief blurb:

Eric Schmidt -- Chairman and CEO of Google, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the New America Foundation, and a member of President-Elect Barack Obama's Transition Economic Advisory Board -- will be in Washington Tuesday, Nov. 18, to discuss the intersection between technology and the economy.

Schmidt will explore the ways in which technology can help the new administration and Congress address two of the biggest challenges ahead: generating the kind of short- and long-term economic and job growth that can help pull the nation out of financial distress, and restoring public trust in government. He will offer specifics on such topics as the need to build a 21st Century Infrastructure, support for research and innovation, repairs for our education system, and ways to make the government more open and responsive.

Schmidt's remarks will be followed by a Q&A session. Space is limited for this event; please RSVP if you plan to attend. This event will also be webcast live.

Start: 11/18/2008 - 1:00pm
End: 11/18/2008 - 2:30pm
Ronald Reagan Building Amphitheater
1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, 20004
United States

Yesterday's FCC decision to open up unused TV channels to unlicensed wireless devices has generated a frenzy of activity among tech-savvy reporters. Wired interviewed me for their article today -- which hits the nail on the head, but doesn't yet focus attention on the fundamental technological shift that opportunistic spectrum access makes possible. I was hoping that Wired would be a good venue for a big picture visioning of a future where these technologies are normative -- here's what we ended up with...

[Originally posted at: http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/11/fccs-decision-t.html]

The Federal Communications Commission's decision to open up the 'white spaces' spectrum to unlicensed devices could usher in a new telecom revolution, say analysts.

Like Wi-Fi, the availability of free, unregulated spectrum could create new technologies and new markets, bringing superfast wireless connectivity to the masses. Unlike Wi-Fi, it could also put pressure on wireless carriers.

"All the PR spin and FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) failed in the face of physics and the ground reality of engineering," says Sascha Meinrath, research director of the wireless future program at the New America Foundation, a non-partisan public policy think-tank.

"Opening up white spaces will lower the cost of communications by facilitating new technology, software and devices is an enormous win for public interest," he says.

AT A GLANCE:
White Spaces Winners

Intel: The company's chips could power many of the new devices on the white spaces spectrum.

Google: New services from Google could be offered on the new spectrum. Google could even end up becoming a broadband service provider, perhaps as part of a consortium.

Motorola/Philips/Dell: They are likely to create the hardware and the devices to access the broadband services on white spaces.

Consumers: More innovative products, more wireless choices, and higher wireless data speeds. Also, the use of white spaces could finally usher in the era of seamless roaming across technologies.

White Spaces Losers

Verizon/AT&T/Comcast: These companies have paid billions over the years to gain exclusive rights to the spectrum. Now they will have to fight new entrants who have no legacy costs to worry about.

Professional Audio Equipment Manufacturers: These companies, which have so far operated in the white spaces, will have to spend more to create equipment that will work in different areas of the spectrum. They will also have to spend more on testing their devices to avoid interference.

'White spaces' refers to the unused bits of spectrum between UHF television channels, which will no longer be needed when the U.S. abandons analog television broadcasting and goes all-digital in February, 2009.

But just how to use that spectrum was a hotly-contested battle that pitted technology companies against broadcasters and wireless audio equipment manufacturers.

Wireless microphones and other equipment used by broadcasters and event producers already use some of this spectrum, so those groups resisted the idea of letting unlicensed devices onto their airwaves, willy-nilly.

The FCC's latest decision means technology companies such as Google, Intel Motorola, Phillips and Dell -- which lobbied to "free the spectrum" so they could build data services on it -- will emerge as big winners.

Telecom carriers such as Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and Comcast will feel the pain and be forced to adapt to a new reality, say analysts.

Verizon and AT&T have paid billions over the last few years for exclusive of chunks of spectrum. Also, Sprint and Clearwire are creating a Wi-Max network that could also be threatened by white spaces-based broadband.

White space frequencies are unlicensed, which means any company can use the spectrum. By contrast, wireless carriers have exclusive, licensed access to the frequencies that their phones use.

"White spaces could be a friend or foe of existing carriers," says Paul Gallant, an analyst with research firm wealth management firm The Stanford Group. "It might end up enabling carriers to enhance their retail offerings or it could be used in completely new ways to undercut the existing business models."

Sprint declined to comment.

White spaces have been coveted by technology companies for their potential. The spectrum will allow wireless signals to travel 2-3 times farther than Wi-Fi signals can today, including through obstacles.

Allowing for unlicensed use of white spaces means consumers will see a new generation of wireless broadband devices, said Craig Mundie, chief strategy officer for Microsoft, in a letter to members of the House of Representatives a few days ago.

It will enable low wireless broadband service in rural areas, self-forming mesh networks capable of routing traffic at speeds of 20 megabits per second and above within the mesh; and wireless distribution of content throughout the home and among devices, said Mundie.

That's exactly what consumers need today, agrees Meinrath. "All those problems of diversity on the airwaves and access to internet broadband connectivity are predicated on the artificial scarcity of airwaves," he says. "They will be alleviated."

The future of communications is in seamless roaming across not just networks but also technologies such as wireline broadband, Wi-Fi and cellular networks.

"The devices of the future will allow you to completely un-tether yourself," says Meinrath.

Already Google has applied for a patent that would allow the company to create such a device.

Chip companies such as Intel are also likely to profit from opening up of white spaces. Intel could potentially develop chips that can ride over white spaces, much like the Wi-Fi and WiMax-enabled chips it produces today.

The move could also mean that companies such as Motorola, Phillips and Dell could create new mobile devices that could become alternatives to smartphones or companions to notebooks.

For telecom service providers, it will be the beginning of a new world. Broadband connectivity over white spaces could change the telecom landscape much like Wi-Fi did a few years ago.

Existing service providers will have to evolve fast or find themselves sinking as newer players, probably a consortium led by Google, enter the market.

"The key question is, who is going to pick up the ball and run with it?" says Gallant.

Meanwhile Cablevision is building out a mobile broadband service in New York using unlicensed spectrum that's not white space, says Gallant. If Cablevision's experiment succeeds Comcast, Verizon and other service providers could end up embracing white spaces.

As for Verizon's $4.7 billion winning bid earlier this year for the 700
MHZ spectrum, it won't be an investment they are likely to regret.

"Verizon knew exactly what they were getting with that spectrum," says Gallant. "White spaces is just the opposite. It is very risky and may be hard to create a business model that will be truly successful on it."