Cecilia Kang over at the Washington Post recently covered the Open Technology Initiative's proposal for a broadband nutrition label. You may already be familiar with the idea from the myriad credit card applications you probably receive each month which are mandated to contain a Shumer Box of key information about the credit card offer.

This sort of standardization makes comparisons across credit cards remarkably easy and helps ensure that we, as consumers, know what we're getting ourselves into. The same idea is what underlies the nutrition labels found on all prepackaged foods. My team's addition to the debate was to apply this idea to broadband services and propose what information should be contained within this informational disclosure.

Here's more from the Washington Post:

A nutrition box for Internet service?

Of all the data being collected for a federal probe into truth-in-billing rules for communications services, one statistic stands out:

Consumers are paying for broadband Internet service that lags advertised speeds by as much as 50 percent.

That stat was revealed by the Federal Communications Commission last month during a report on its plan to connect the entire nation to high-speed Internet. The news sent Twitterverse aflutter with outrage. Post Tech got tons of feedback on an entry about it. Consumer advocates said the revelation could open the door to class-action lawsuits against carriers for deceptive advertising.

And now those groups are offering one solution to help users from getting bamboozled. The groups, along with the New America Foundation, have proposed a Nutrition Fact box for broadband. Instead of calories, carbs and fiber, the broadband box would break down data on guaranteed delivered speeds, price, and length of contract. Such details are often blurred and buried in the fine print of multiple-page service agreements.







Truthful delivery of advertised speeds clearly hit and nerve with users who spend an average of $150 each month for their cell phone, cable or satellite television, home phone and Internet connections. And it was added frustration to notoriously shoddy service problems.

Communications service providers often rank low among industries in customer satisfaction surveys. Some online consumer activists have used the viral messaging on the Web to push companies like Comcast and Verizon to refocus their ways. Service at Comcast was so bad for Advertising Age blogger Bob Garfield that he started a Web site Comcastmustdie.com. That site has died and the push online hasn't led to meaningful change on billing practices of communications firms like Comcast, AT&T, Dish TV, Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile, consumer advocacy groups said.

"Consumers experience substantial confusion and frustration when choosing a service provider and plan, when using unexpectedly limited or low quality services, and when receiving higher-than expected bills," the groups wrote in final comments sent yesterday for the FCC review. "Substantial changes to the commission’s existing rules are necessary to remedy these problems."

Currently, carriers are generally left to voluntarily abide by some of the truth-in-billing standards, according to the groups that include Free Press, Consumers Union and Media Access Project.

The FCC's review looks at information available to consumers at all stages of the purchasing process of a communications service -- choosing a provider, choosing a service plan, managing use of the service plan, and deciding whether and when to switch an existing provider or plan.

Image credit: New America Foundation

A bit late -- but have been slammed. I speak again on September 9th on the consumer issues panel. Should be a really interesting time of things:

Prepared Testimony of Sascha Meinrath Before the FCC Wireless Technology Workshop

By Sascha Meinrath, New America Foundation
August 13, 2009

I work for a DC-based think tank - holding down the technology arm of the foundation's work.

The Open Technology Initiative formulates policy and regulatory reforms to support open architectures and open source innovations; and facilitate the development and implementation of open technologies and communications networks.

OTI promotes affordable, universal, and ubiquitous communications networks through partnerships with communities, researchers, industry, and public interest groups; and is committed to maximizing the potentials of innovative open technologies by studying their social and economic impacts - particularly for poor, rural, and other underserved constituencies.

***

Today we are living through a critical juncture in telecommunications history.

A trifecta of recent societal shifts are combining to create a "perfect storm" for advancing policies to better meet the needs of all U.S. residents.

• First, technological advances are creating a whole host of new platforms and hardware to better connect people, dramatically increasing the utility of communications tools.
• Second, consumers everywhere are clamoring for access to advanced services and new applications - driving multi-media production and information dissemination.
• Third, generational shifts amongst our country's key decision-makers are generating the potential for seismic changes in our country's regulatory environment.

Taken together, these factors should be driving a communications renaissanceakin to the introduction of the printing press, telephone, or the Internet itself.

Instead,what we are seeing is a systematic entrenchment of vested interests that are diligently:

1. working to prevent many of the most innovative technologies from ever seeing the light of day;
2. who are engaging in draconian attempts to limit media production and stifle information dissemination; and,
3. as Amy Schatz reported yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, launching unprecedented lobbying efforts to stagnate or prevent meaningful and much-needed reforms.

Here inside the Beltway, an epic battle is about to be waged between those seeking to create a participatory, distributed, and democratic digital public sphere and forces seeking to re-establish a command-and-control regime over next-generation telecommunications infrastructure.

As the populace shifts from wireline to mobile communications as theirconnectivity norm, wireless technologies are at the very heart of this battle.

Instead of building next-generation networks focused around lowering costs forconsumers and maximizing user control over the services and hardware we have bought, providers are architecting systems that maximize billable moments -commoditizing every new space and function possible.

Instead of fostering interconnectivity of networks and interoperability of devices, theforces of command-and-control seek new ways to capture market share and generate path dependencies to limit customer churn.

Handset exclusivity and the lockdown of cellular phones and PDAs are symptomatic of this business model; but so too are the myriad limitations we've already seen to prevent users from doing everything from streaming video, to Google Voice andSkype.

Historically,over the past 75 years, we have dramatically increased wireless capacity by opening up higher and higher frequencies as the technologies have made these bands viable. Allocations for new uses have paralleled these reforms.

However, assignments to license holders in years' past, being based upon the cutting edge technological capacities of their day, are remarkably in efficient by today's standards.

Today, cognitive and software defined radio technologies allows us to "in-fill"throughout the public airwaves - dynamically reusing empty or underutilized frequencies.

This opportunistic spectrum reuse - and its potential to dramatically decentralize and improve communications - is one of the most powerful tools available for breaking the current strangleholds we face over how we communicate.

Today's technological capabilities have far outstripped many current business practices- straining infrastructure that was built for the wrong purpose.

Tomorrow, this disruptive potential is certain to grow and - so long as current systems remain locked down and service provision fails to meet consumer needs - may achieve explosive proportions.

The question we must all face and answer, is "How do we transition to a moredistributed, participatory, democratic telecommunications system?"

After years of burying our head in the sand, a continuing failure to forthrightly address systematic shortcoming in our wireless communications infrastructure will dramatically increase the headaches (and economic costs) that we will eventually have to face.

Leadership from Congress, from private industry, and from the public interest sector is desperately needed to ensure that these necessary transitions are graceful instead of unmanageable and liberatory instead of harmful.

But most importantly, the onus lies with the FCC to ensure that the future of wireless communications lives up to its democratic potential.

The FCC, through incentives and regulatory fiat has the responsibility to ensure that the public airwaves serve, first and foremost, the best interest of the residents of the United States and leverage the capabilities of open hardwareand software; cognitive radio technologies; and peer-to-peer, distributed infrastructures.

I look forward to hearing how each of my co-panelists sees their company's rolein supporting this mandate and look forward to your questions.

About a half-decade ago I wrote up a piece for the Journal of Community Informatics, "Community Wireless Networking and Open Spectrum Usage: A Research Agenda to Support Progressive Policy Reform of the Public Airwaves". My focus was on spectrum policy, but the first key point I raised was valuable across the board -- to create a truly progressive telecommunications policy:

"First, identify major research that has already been conducted and impacted (or been cited) in regulatory/policy debates, as well as the independent research labs that are most active in contemporary spectrum research areas. This assessment would survey the literature that "counts" -- encompassing technical, economic, social, and other domains that should be taken into account and help inform contemporary regulatory/policy debates. This literature could then be used to help set the agenda for future policy debates."

Now fast forward to today's press release from the FCC (and which happens to be put out by my friend and colleague, Jen Howard, who just started her new gig at the FCC last week):

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 14, 2009

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT
Jen Howard
(202) 418-0506
Jen.howard@fcc.gov

Harvard’s Berkman Center to Conduct Independent Review of Broadband Studies to Assist FCC

WASHINGTON – The Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University will conduct an independent expert review of existing literature and studies about broadband deployment and usage throughout the world. This project will help inform the FCC’s efforts in developing the National Broadband Plan.

“Advanced communications have the potential to enhance the lives of all Americans, improve public safety, create jobs, and support our economic recovery,” Chairman Julius Genachowski said. “As the Commission embarks on the important task of crafting a National Broadband Plan, better data will inform and animate the activities of the agency. The Berkman Center’s independent review of existing information will help lay the foundation for enlightened, data-driven decisionmaking. I appreciate the Berkman Center’s invaluable assistance and look forward to seeing the results.”

Yochai Benkler, the Berkman Professor of Entrepreneurial Legal Studies at Harvard, and faculty co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, said, “I am pleased that the Berkman Center can contribute positively to the process Chairman Genachowski has envisioned for developing a national broadband strategy by providing to the Commission, and thereby the public, the results of our compilation and assessment of the existing literature on this important and timely subject.”

“A comprehensive assessment of these plans will be enormously helpful given our short timetable,” said Blair Levin, who is coordinating the FCC’s National Broadband Plan. “We don’t want to reinvent the wheel. Knowing what has already been learned will improve our ability to deliver the best possible National Broadband Plan.” Consistent with Chairman Genachowski’s recent public statements regarding an open and transparent National Broadband Plan process, the results of the Berkman Center review will be made publicly available.

Awesome!

I've been working with Senator Klobuchar's office to draft up an open access fiber bill and, after a couple month's work, got the message that Klobuchar and and Mark Warner were finally introducing their text. Alas, pretty much nothing of the work we'd done on this was in the text -- in fact, it's basically the same text as Eshoo's office introduced -- which is entirely devoid of any meaningful anything.

What a pickle -- the potential for such good sacrificed at the altar of political expedience. Worse than that, it's the potential to claim that an issue has been addressed without actually doing anything meaningful to fix the problem. After talking with staffers, I know that they're getting push-back from those that don't want cheap broadband for the masses, but seriously, we're in the midst of a half-decade long, massive broadband market failure. One need just look at the numbers to see that the US, once #1 in the world of broadband connectivity, has slipped precipitously from this perch.

Of course, the introduction of a bill is only the opening gambit in a far larger political tango. To be fair, the goal is to get something on the table that can then be marked up. My concern is that when you open with such a remarkably weak hand, it makes it all the more difficult to affect meaningful change. Hopefully, this doesn't become a situation whereby a few elected officials grab the public spotlight for a few news cycles but don't actually plan to carry out any of the hard political lift that productive reform requires.

For now, I'm cautiously optimistic -- here's the press release we just put out on the topic:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

New America Foundation Applauds Klobuchar, Warner Fiber Conduit Legislation for Broadband Superhighway

Legislation Will Link Conduit Deployment with Federally-funded Transportation Projects

Washington, D.C. June 15, 2009 -- U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar announced today that she will introduce legislation with U.S. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) to promote more rapid, cost-effective expansion across the country of broadband networks that carry high-speed, high-capacity communications.

The "Broadband Conduit Deployment Act of 2009" would require the integration of underground fiber conduit into the construction and reconstruction of our nation's transportation infrastructure by requiring the installation of broadband conduit as part of any federally-funded transportation project.

The New America Foundation applauds this forward-thinking legislation.

"As the nation looks to develop a national broadband plan to move the U.S. ahead, it is critical that we look for innovative and efficient ways to bring broadband into communities across the country," said Benjamin Lennett, Policy Analyst for the New America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative and Wireless Future Program. "In linking an essential component of broadband deployment with the ongoing construction and repair of transportation systems (e.g. highways, roads, bridges, tunnels, and railways), the U.S. can start 'baking broadband' into our nationwide infrastructure investments, much as we do for essential utilities such as water and electricity, rather than view it as a distinctly separate endeavor."

The legislation draws inspiration from a proposal put out by the New America Foundation's Wireless Future Program and Open Technology Initiative in January 2009. "Building a 21st Century Broadband Superhighway," calls for earmarking $1.2 to $3.6 billion in the 2009 Omnibus Transportation Bill to mandate and fund the build-out of open access, conduit and fiber-optic infrastructure into the construction, resurfacing and upgrading of our nation's highway system. The New America plan contains seven key elements:

1. Fiber bundles of between 144 and 288 strands laid in an easily accessed ductwork and conduit system;
2. Fiber links should have easily accessible interconnection points that allow providers access on a non-discriminatory basis;
3. Common carriage and wholesale access on these network links;
4. AUP-free use of these fiber assets and any additional links necessary to reach an open interconnection point;
5. Access to any and all entities seeking to offer data services, both for-profit and nonprofit, including municipalities;
6. An accurate assessment and mapping the build-out process and functionality; and,
7. A revenue-sharing agreement wherein users contribute to a "Digital Excellence Fund" to support continuing fiber build-outs and provide funding for digital literacy and educational programs to increase broadband adoption.

"Senators Amy Klobuchar and Mark Warner are leading the charge to bring universal, affordable broadband access to underserved communities throughout the United States," stated Sascha Meinrath, Director of New America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative. "The onus is now upon the rest of us to support the implementation of broadband best practices and ensure that good ideas are not sacrificed to political expedience."

A clear obstacle to bringing high-speed broadband to rural areas and promoting increased broadband competition is access to the underlying fiber-optic infrastructures that connect local broadband networks to the Internet. The vast majority of the cost associated with bringing high-speed fiber deep into rural communities and promoting alternatives fiber links along public rights-of-way is associated with digging-up and repairing the road to install the buried fiber. Among the key goals of the Klobuchar/Warner legislation is to spur the build-out of that essential broadband infrastructure by reducing the largest deployment cost, thereby offering a cost-efficient means to promote the deployment of fiber into communities across the country.

"The Klobuchar and Warner bill begs the question, 'If so much can be done with such modest support, why hasn't the United States invested adequately in such a critically important resource?" said Meinrath. "After a half-decade of broadband stagnation, the United States now has an opportunity to catch up and implement a truly innovative proposal."

To download a copy of NAF's paper on the subject, visit http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/building_21st_century_broadband_superhighway.

For media requests, please contact Kate Brown, Media Relations Manager, at 202-596-3365(w) or 202-213-7051(m).

Contacts:
Sascha Meinrath
Director, Open Technology Initiative
meinrath@newamerica.net
(202) 986 - 2700

Benjamin Lennett
Policy Analyst, Wireless Future Program and Open Technology Initiative
lennett@newamerica.net
(202) 986 - 2700

###

New America's Open Technology Initiative formulates policy and regulatory reforms to support open architectures and open source innovations and facilitates the development and implementation of open technologies and communications networks. For more information, visit, http://www.newamerica.net/programs/oti.

New America's Wireless Future Program develops and advocates policy proposals aimed at achieving universal and affordable wireless broadband access, expanding public access to the airwaves and updating our nation's communications infrastructure in the digital era. For more information, visit http://www.newamerica.net/programs/wireless_future.

About the New America Foundation
The New America Foundation is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy institute that invests in new thinkers and new ideas to address the next generation of challenges facing the United States.

Tomorrow I'm keynoting at the "Internet Openness: Net Neutrality and Beyond" event at the Cardozo Law School in New York City. It should be a spirited discussion since I'm debating with Berin Szoka from the Progress and Freedom Foundation (a right-leaning, market fundamentalist think tank). Interestingly enough, I've spoken with Adam Thierer (aslo of PFF) on on many issues (e.g., privacy and data protection, freedom of speech, etc.) we vociferously agree.

But the "leave it all to the 'free market'" that wants to keep government 100% out of telecommunications is where I think PFF goes off the deep end. "Self-regulation" only goes so far, without government setting parameters for markets, one ends up with the malfeasance and collapse of the savings and loans, airlines, car manufacturers, and now banks (and all of this in the past 25 years). You'd think we would have learned by now that government acts as a check and balance -- without it, markets spin out of control. And in much the same way that you wouldn't want the government running everything, neither do you want markets running amok (only to be bailed out with my hard-earned tax dollars when they come back for a bailout to the same government they didn't want involved in the first place).

Should be an interesting time. Event power is below; here's more:

4/21/2009

11:30 am - 5:00 pm

The Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal is pleased to present a symposium on Internet openness, net neutrality, content diversity and competition. What is the new definition of net neutrality and what are the developing mandates? How do policymakers promote or harm the richness and diversity online content/media? Join the lively debate with speakers including Sascha Meinrath (New America Foundation); Berin Szoka (Progress & Freedom Foundation); John Morris (Center for Democracy & Technology); Matthew Lasar (Ars Technica); Fred Benenson (Creative Commons); Jonathan Askin (Brooklyn Law School).

This event will take place in the Moot Court Room, Tuesday, April 21, 2009, at 11:30am. We will be providing lunch and a reception to follow, so please RSVP (mweldon@yu.edu) to ensure enough food is available. CLE credit will also be available: 1.5 credits for each of the two sessions.

Schedule:

11:15am: Check-in
11:30am: Session 1(Meinrath/Szoka)
1:00pm: Lunch
2:15pm: Session 2 (Morris/Askin/Lasar/Benenson/Heller)
4:00pm: Reception

Below is my testimony before NTIA from March 16, 2009. While most of the other folks who presented focused on the impacts for corporations, I wanted to bring the conversation back around to what was primarily important -- the potential positive impacts on local communities. Here's what I said:

Thank you very much. It is good to be here.

For those who know me, I will be taking a slightly different perspective on things. I spent the past decade in addition to my work at the New America Foundation also doing community technology deployment. I have been climbing on roofs, building coalitions and suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous local politics, and I have been successfully implementing solutions in communications that people said were impossible to deploy.

So let me begin by restating what I hope is obvious, which is that private profits are the byproduct of the critically important digital inclusion work -- work that needs to be done desperately in this country -- but they are not the end goal of the stimulus funding.

Our fundamental goal should be to search for the most efficacious eligible entities, both public and private, and maximize the social and economic benefits of this national intervention. It is critically important for NTIA to evaluate each application on its own merits, and not disallow any specific entities or organizations from applying a priori.

The fact is that broad band stimulus is so desperately needed is indicative of the woeful state of current service provisioning within many communities. It's very existence that of the BTOP program points to the need for new thinking and innovation and new strategies that dramatically differ from prior attempts.

The types of eligible private entities we must support must go far beyond usual suspects. Within the private sector NGO's of all types must be eligible and must include nonprofits, hybrid partnerships with municipal entities, etc., etc., etc.

Current measures, business models and implementation plans have far too often marginalized considerable resources and expertise within local communities. The deprioritization of local control and accountability has too often led to far less effective IT training for local residents, lowered educational outcomes, decreased salience to local constituents of the systems that are deployed, and the marginalization of these communities that these resources are supposed to be serving.

So NTIA has an opportunity to begin to address these digital injustices. We have both an obligation to ensure that the very best organizations receive public funding, and the concomitant duty to ensure that the most socially and economically just outcomes are deployed. Diversity ensures that universal and broadband access and the widest span of digital resources becomes a reality.

To sum up, digital inclusion is not just about the services offered, it's about the local control and accountability of these organizations. It's about finding the right institutions and organizations to deliver these services in the first place.

I very much look forward to the following discussion and public comment. Thank you.

Call for Paper Proposals

Beyond Broadband Access: Data-Based Information Policy For a New Administration

This is a Call for Proposals (Abstracts) for papers for a three day by-invitation Experts Workshop on approaches to developing data-based information policy. The deliverables are expected to be policy recommendations, a book and a new research agenda. Abstracts are due by April 15, 2009.

Scope and Overview:

The stimulus bill just passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by President Obama allocates $7.2 billion to loan and grant programs for the deployment of broadband. Most recently the governments of Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, France and the United Kingdom have committed more spectrum to wireless broadband services, However, it is widely acknowledged that in order to fully realize the potential of broadband for the promotion of social progress, economic development and democracy, mere access is not enough. Technology, applications, education, awareness, skills, and content are among many factors that are to be taken into account. Understanding the interplay of all these factors is essential in order to take information policy to the next level. However, this demands both firm empirical and theoretical foundations.

This Workshop is intended to propose a strategy for developing such a foundation -- a comprehensive, data-based approach for understanding policy consequences and improving policy outcomes through the utilization of meaningful empirical analyses, statistical methods, and the development of new conceptual frameworks. The Workshop will assemble a small group of highly skilled experts to seek breakthrough insights, which can be applied to current policy challenges.

Important policy decisions are being made worldwide about information services that promote innovation, knowledge development, social equity and democratic values. These decisions can be improved if informed by empirical data that will assist decision makers in understanding the likely consequences of their policies.

Many numbers are thrown around in the global information policy discourse regarding matters such as "e-readiness", the "digital divide", and the "information society". What do these numbers actually mean? Are they the numbers that matter? Are they loaded for or against certain outcomes? Can the underlying methods and data be transformed into truly useful policy tools? Most of the existing approaches to measurements that affect information policy produce results which are descriptive and comparative (e.g., which nation has more Internet access), which are only useful up to a point. Clearly, what is needed are approaches which are explanatory and predictive, that help understand not only what has happened but also why, and to assist in making predictions about what will happen. This presents significant methodological challenges that must first be guided by theory, and in this field, theory is remarkably lacking.

Description

The Workshop will bring together a group of about twenty experts on information metrology from around the world. They will meet for three days in Washington, D.C., where, during morning and afternoon sessions, they will make presentations, share research, hear guest experts, discuss concrete approaches and new theories, identify problems and challenges, and develop conclusions and a future research agenda. Each participant will write and present an original paper to the group, which will then be the subject of questions and discussion, followed by a final Workshop summary session. Participants will be selected based on their abstracts and their identified ability to make a significant contribution based on their expertise or experience.

Date and Location

DATE: September 22-24, 2009
PLACE: The New America Foundation
1899 L Street NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036

Topics:

Proposals should be based on current theoretical or empirical
research, and may be from any disciplinary perspective. Subject areas of interest include, but are not limited to the following:

Theory: Specification of objectives; development of theoretical models; identification of testable hypotheses; selection of appropriate methodologies for analysis.

Data: Identification of key indicators; development of consistent data standards; data collection and verification; data access.

Modeling: Development of empirical models; dealing with institutional diversity and complexity; coping with dynamic technological change. Multidimensional visual modeling of large bodies of data.

Application: Formulating answerable questions; Making predictions about outcomes; Analyzing relevant data; Using outcomes to refine theory and hypotheses.

Policy Development: Organization of statistical resources; conversion of results of statistical analysis into policy guidance; incorporation of results in shaping policy or legislation; political use of findings.

Submission Deadline:

Submissions are due by April 15, 2009. Submissions should be made to expwkshopDBIP2009@psu.edu. Abstracts are not to exceed 500 words. Abstracts should be accompanied by a brief biographical description of the author(s)(no more than two pages). Decisions will be announced by May 29, 2009.

Accepted papers will be due on Sept. 1, 2009, and authors are expected to present the accepted submissions.

Support Funds:

Final funding plans are still being developed, but it is expected that some funding will be available to help offset the costs of attendance for accepted papers, with a priority given to international participants.

Program Organizers:

• Johannes Bauer, Ph.D., Professor, Telecommunication, Information Studies, and Media, Co-Director, Quello Center for Telecommunication Management & Law, MSU (https://www.msu.edu/~bauerj/)
• Sascha Meinrath, Research Director, Wireless Future Program, New America Foundation (http://www.newamerica.net/people/sascha_meinrath)
• Jorge R. Schement, Ph.D., Dean, School of Communication, Information and Library Science, RU (http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/directory/jschemen/index.html)
• Richard Taylor, J.D., Ed.D., Palmer Chair and Professor of Telecommunications Studies, Co-Director, Institute for Information Policy (http://comm.psu.edu/people/rdt4)
• Bin Zhang, Ph.D., Professor, School of Economics and Management, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications (http://www.intramis.net/?q=node/4)

For information or questions, contact: Richard Taylor at rdt4[at]psu.edu

I recently had a wide-ranging conversation/interview with Lee Dryburgh, who puts on the the yearly eComm conference (this year's will take place March 3-5 in San Francisco). It's a fun read of what I've been thinking about at the dawn of the Obama administration:

Sascha Meinrath on Spectrum 2.0, Battling the Incumbents and Future Telecom Networks - Emerging Communications Blog

Last Wednesday I had the pleasure of interviewing Sascha Meinrath (who will be one of the keynote speakers) via Skype.

You can download it as a 96kbps MP3 here (32 meg, 46 minutes).

Additionally the full transcript is below. To distinguish between us I've indented Sascha.

Transcript

Good morning, Sascha.  How are you?

I'm doing well.  Good morning to you. 

What time is it where you are?

Where we are, it is now about 10:30.  I've already had my first meetings of the day.  [Laughs]

Okay, well, it's 4:30 p.m. here, and I've got large mug of coffee so I'm all good for you.  So, I'm really excited to be speaking with you.  I see that you're the Research Director for the New America Foundation's Wireless Future Program.  Could you say a few words on what the Wireless Future Program is?

Sure, Wireless Future Program has been engaged, the past seven years, in telecommunications reform.  In particular, it's been particularly focused on spectrum, the public airwaves here, in the United States, and innovation in terms of how it's allocated and used, and who has access to it.  A lot of what we've pushed for are things like opening up spectrum to unlicensed devices and reallocating spectrum for public access, things of that sort.

I also head up what is going to become the Open Technology Initiative, here at New America Foundation, which will be looking at open architecture, open source, open API, kind of the open side of these technologies that are happening.  So everything from cell phones and open networks on cellular networks, to open source software and design.

Okay, the Open Technology Initiative sound pretty interesting, so let me make a note here to circle back on you, a little later, with questions on that.  So, looking here at the New America Foundation's Board of Directors, I see the Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google is the Chairman.

Yes, and he's actually been with New America since before his days at Google.  He's been on our board for a number of years, now.  Recently, this past year, he stepped up and decided that he wanted to put a bit more time and energy behind the Foundation, and has stepped up as Chairman of the Board.  He got a lot of press for it.  What was not really talked about so much is that he's been part of this institution for quite a number of years.

[Laughs]  Okay, I'm just laughing because obviously I picked up the sort of Google sense, the Google significance to it and what it could mean, except you're saying he's been on the board for years, anyway.

A lot of people want to really read in that this means Google in some way has its fingers in the Foundation, and the reality is that's not really true.  He happens to now be chairman of our board, and CEO of Google.  The reality is that there are some areas where some of the work we're doing aligns with what Google wants to do, as well, and we're happy to work together and partner in those areas, but Google doesn't have any official space or place inside this organization.

Okay, thanks a lot for that clarification.  I'm going to jump right into the deep end here, where I really want to go.  You talk about a status quo in communications.  Could I ask you to describe that status quo?

Sure, let me exemplify it straight out of our own historical records here, in the United States, which in terms of licensure and who has access to much needed resources, and it could be rights-of-way access, but I'll focus on the public airwaves part of things.  Starting in the 1920's and into the 1930's, when the Federal Communications Commission, sort of the highest, most important space for telecommunications policy making in the United States, when they decided, back in 1934 and onwards, that we had to divvy-up the airwaves, it was based on the newest, most important, cutting edge, technology of the pre-WWII society.  Unfortunately, that kind of licensure regime has, effectively, continued to be in place, right up through and until today.

When people get licenses, they get a specific license and a specific location and at a specific power, which ends up being incredibly inefficient.  A lot of things have changed since the 1930's.  We have transistors, computers, and digital technology.  That is not really taken into account in terms of shifts in how we allocate the public airwaves.  What this has led to, then, is an artificial scarcity, which keeps certain incumbencies in place.  In fact, we have sort of an oligopoly on a lot of the airwaves, but it also keeps most of the populace out of being able to use the airwaves, for various uses. 

The status quo is very much about maintaining this oligopolistic system of maintaining artificial scarcity, of ensuring that the incumbents still have control over this medium, and that the actual owners of the public airwaves are kept out of this medium.  What it boils down to is that we're really fighting to ensure that new technologies and innovations, things like digital computers and digital technology, are taken into account when we're setting up our spectrum licensure.

Okay, did you see the comments that Lessig made, regarding the FCC, recently?  Are you able to pass any comment on them?

The knee-jerk reaction is often to jettison everything.  I think there is a lot of jettisoning that needs to take place.  We need to shift, dramatically, how we license things.  But, you can't just throw everything out without an alternative for how to take care of incredibly important areas of telecommunications policy.  If we were to jettison the FCC, we would end up being stagnant in ways that are even worse than the current situation.  I still have hope that a new FCC will be more proactive in instituting much needed reforms.  I'm still hopeful that a new staff will be much more aligned with the public interest coalitions that have been working here, in D.C., and pushing for reforms that really meet the needs of the general populace. 

I don't want to throw out the baby and the bath water.  [Laughter]  I really want to look at how we can have meaningful reforms and interventions into a system that is clearly broken.  Lessig was very correct in that.  Still, it has a lot of positive aspects to it. 

Okay, and this status quo, you've described it as inefficient, stagnant, overpriced, command-and-control.  That is fairly - that's not a light viewpoint.  You feel very strongly that a status quo that we have is not acceptable. 

It is completely unacceptable.  I speak as somebody who has served a couple of terms as a member of the board of directors for my local community radio station.  I've set up a low power, FM radio station.  I've fought, for half a decade, to get a license for our local community to have its own radio station. 

These sorts of battles - it's very clear that media diversity has been thrown out of the window.  Local control of the media has been thrown out of the window over the last eight years.  These are reforms that need to be made.  We really need to re-empower the populace to take control over what is ours; the public airwaves are held in trust for us to use, and has been granted to corporations and entities that have made incredibly inefficient use of them. 

Government research - National Science Foundation here in the United States has conducted extensive research on actual spectrum usage.  What we found is that even though the allocations of space - this part for FM radio, that part for AM radio, this part for television broadcast - the allocations show a completely full spectrum.  When you look at the assignments, you find, "CBS gets this station, and WRFU gets that station".  These assignments show there is a lot of empty space, but then when you look at actual use, what's happening on the ground, you find that over ninety percent of the airwaves are vacant, in any specific location in any specific time.

You can imagine a resource that's being used less than ten percent efficiently, and that's what we have, today, with the public airwaves.  I look at that and I look at the scarcity, and I look at the desire to make better use of the public airwaves, by people all across the country, and I think that's egregiously unfair.

So, then, I would like to ask what alternatives do exist?

There are many alternatives.  One of the big ones we're pushing for is called "Opportunistic Spectrum Reuse".  People can think of this in terms of a Wi-Fi device that can scan and find an open channel.  Or, if you remember home telephones, radiotelephones, where you would hit the on button and it might scan a number of channels and choose the one that had the clearest signal.  These technologies have been around for quite some time. 

With the television white space and in the spaces that we used to - if you were flipping through your television, you would have snow on your screen; those spaces can be reutilized for broadband access and for all sorts of different purposes.  We've pushed very hard at the FCC to allow unused television spaces to be used by next generation hardware or software, etc.  This is a fundamental shift in how we license our spectrums, and basically says, "Look, as long as we're using less than ten percent of the space, let's reuse the unallocated space, the underutilized space, on an ad hoc basis, by next generation hardware, so people can do all sorts of new, innovative things with it".  That's a huge change. 

The second one that we've been fighting for, and have lost thus far, is what's called "Interference Temperature," which is that in the same was as a rock concert, people in the audience can whisper, or yell for that matter, and not be disruptive to the concert itself, we want to see very low powered usage on occupied channels.

The idea is if you're sitting next to a 100,000-watt television transmitter and you want to utilize a device to connect your laptop computer to your television, fifteen feet away, you should be allowed to do that in the same space.  Of course, the incumbents have said, "If you allow any of these things, it will destroy radio, or television," or whatever it is that they own or license.  Of course, time and time again, we've found that these claims of disruption have been blown way out of proportion.  The disruptions that have been promised have never come to pass.

Okay, Yochai Benkler's Wealth of Networks comes to mind.

Absolutely

So, do you have some more optimism, now that Kevin Martin has stepped down [at the FCC] and you have Julius stepping up [as chairman of the FCC]?

Yeah

Yes - more hope?

I have a lot more hope.  You know, I've worked with Julius first on the campaign, and with the transition teams, and he gets a lot of these new ideas, in terms of innovation and shifting our regulations and policies to take advantage of computers, digital technologies and other advancements that have happened in the past half century, frankly.  So I'm very hopeful that a newly constituted FCC, with him at the helm, or with somebody else at the helm, would be fantastically much more receptive to a lot of the ideas that we've been talking about for years, but it's faced a lot of resistance from regulators.

So, you see some traction coming?

Absolutely, it's very clear that they've pulled together an "A" team of thinkers and innovators to contemplate what are the new policies that we're going to be implementing or looking at, in the next few years.  That gives me a lot of hope because when you get the engineers in the same room, and they're talking off the record, there is a lot of eye-to-eye agreement on what needs to happen.  It's only once the PR spin, and what have you, gets thrown into the mix, that you end up with people on opposite sides of the table on these issues.

Okay, so what opportunities do you see?

Gosh, everything from reuse of underutilized spectrum, to rolling back some of the liberalization that has allowed for media conglomerization in unprecedented rates.  What we've seen, over the past five years - the destruction of local media, the "crisis" that's whelming in things like newspapers, here, in the United States is incredibly destructive to the health of our civil society.  That needs to be addressed. 

We need to look at everything, from how we allocate new spectrum, in terms of whether we should continue to pursue this auction system, which guarantees that corporations fight it out - whereas public interest is completely unable to afford even the licenses that are out there, or whether we look at things - everywhere from network neutrality, to how we view network management and how we view universal service fund reform, in terms of telephone versus Internet. 

All of these are issues that are going to be coming to the fore, over the next year or two, all of which are going to have to be addressed by the FCC.  Many of these have been pushed down the road by the current FCC, for the new FCC to have to deal with.

Okay, I know it's may be slightly off topic, but are you able to pass comment on 700 MHz, and your opinion of how that went?

Sure, 700 MHz was a mixed bag, to say the least.  What we have is a number of different allocations within the 700 -800 MHz range that have been auctioned off, some previously, a couple of years back, and then a huge auction that took place from January to March of 2008.  That second auction, the 2008 auction, raised close to twenty billion dollars.  The big winners were groups like Verizon, the same incumbents that have been incumbents [laughs] for quite some time now.

One of the elements that was a huge win was what's called the "Open Platform Conditions," which mandated that if you have the 20 MHz of space that Verizon won, for about 4.8 billion dollars, then you had to open up your network and you had to allow any device to be attached to this wireless network that consumers and users wanted to bring to that network.  Really, what it is, is a precedent to bring back what's called Carterphone.  On the wire line, here in the United States, there was a Supreme Court decision, in 1968, the Carterphone Decision, which mandated that you could attach what's called "foreign attachments" to any network.  What foreign attachments meant was everything from what became answering machines, to modems, which of course, is what allowed for the Internet to exist in the first place.  Without the Carterphone Decision, there would have been no Internet.

Unfortunately, in the wireless realm, we've never had a Carterphone kind of decision applied.  So, the Open Platform Mandate in the 700 MHz harkens back to this history of allowing foreign attachments, allowing devices to be attached to these networks, so long as they do not harm the network.  It is a giant leap forward, in terms of empowering customers and end users to start building next generation systems, technologies, applications, and services - all of that on a wireless medium as opposed to just the wire line medium.

On the other hand, also in the 700 MHz, you had the D Block, which was a block that was supposed to be utilized for public safety, and to create a national telecommunications infrastructure, with interoperable technologies, for public safety use.  That has been a stagnant disaster. 

I wrote an article about this for Government Technology Magazine, where I interviewed CIO's of places like New York, San Francisco, Houston, and major cities, that really desperately need an interoperable public safety network for disaster response.  They have been waiting for years for the FCC to figure out how to do this. 

In many ways, the D Block is an exemplar of how the FCC has had it's hands tied, in terms of having a mandate by Congress to have to auction this off, but also has been unable to really reinvent itself and institute innovative solutions to address the needs of public safety community, in this case, but the general populace, more generally speaking.

Okay, thanks a lot for your views there on 700 Mhz. I've got a very simple, and it could be a naïve question, but what I never understood with allowing this "foreign attachments" is that when I think of GSM, I can take my SIM card and put it in any device.  For the fancier sports cars out there, you have security systems, where you put in a SIM.  If you car is stolen, it rings you or a main center, automatically.  So, with SIM cards, you can put them into anything.  If I roam into the States, I can take any device I want and it attaches.  So, I never quite understood this because I didn't see anything different to what we have, today, except maybe on paper, it says it's okay.

You have to view it in regards of what are you allowed to do on these networks.  You can take your SIM card and move it around to any SIM-compatible, wireless telephone or similar device.  Chances are, that's actually not allowed by your terms of service with the providers, at least not in the United States, and probably internationally, for the most part.  Now, people do it en masse and it's sort of ignored.

Where you really start running into problems is when you say, "I have a data plan on my cell phone.  Why can't I use my cell phone to tether it to my laptop and get free Internet through that?  Why should I have to buy an EVDO card, or some other device for my laptop, when I'm already paying once for a data plan on my cell phone?" 

The reality is that the providers don't want you to share your data plan amongst other devices; they only want you to buy one data plan for your cell phone, one data plan for your laptop, etc.  This is where the Foreign Attachments Mandate is really important, in that you should be able to take your SIM card and not just be able to put it into your car, but to put it into any device that you want, that follows the standards of connectivity on a wireless, telephony network, and have that interoperate with that network.  You should be able to put a computer - you should be able to put - whatever it is, that should be interoperable with the cellular network, and utilize those devices as you, the consumer, the end user sees fit. 

These are places where we see the lock down that's really in place.  You can't really use any service or any application on the cellular telephony networks.  In fact, whereas that one car might use your SIM car, chances are that car's manufacturer has made some specific deal with that cellular network to allow for that usage to take place, is paying some fee or licensure, etc. 

All of this stuff really is incredibly disheartening for innovation and development of next generation applications and services.  It really stagnates that whole market sector.  When I look at all the different devices you could connect to the Internet, the wire line Internet versus the few devices you can actually connect to a cellular telephony network, I think the Carterphone versus non-Carterphone regimes really become clear.

Okay, so thanks for letting me know that.  You have said that we're at a critical juncture.

Absolutely

Do you want to describe that juncture?

Sure, there are three elements to what is creating this critical juncture.  The first is that new digital technologies are really maturing at an incredibly speedy rate, leading to all sorts of innovations and new uses.  The second is that there is an unprecedented consumer demand to make use of resources like the public airwaves, in ways we really haven't seen since the CB radio craze of the 1970's or in the 1920's, the amateur radio craze.  People really want to utilize wireless technologies in ways that are unprecedented.  The third is that we have this shift in regulatory structures and administrations.  The three of those, the regulatory shifts, the consumer demand, and the new technologies are sort of swirling together and creating this "perfect storm" that has the potential, at least, to shift the trajectory of telecommunications, of fundamental communications, for generations to come. 

Over the next year to three years, is really this moment in time that will determine what that trajectory looks like.  After that, things will really be a lot more locked down and will not be nearly as innovative an environment.  So, the battles that are being waged right now are absolutely, fundamentally important to the future of human communications.  The reality is; warts and all, what's decided here in the United States often reverberates internationally, globally. 

Okay, so you speak about fundamentally changing access to communications.  I'm obviously getting a sense of what you mean there, but do you wish to add a little more about what you mean about fundamentally changing access to communications?

Sure, I very much ascribe to the notion that communications is a fundamental human right.  Article Nineteen of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, back in 1948, was very explicit in stating we, as a community of civil societies, understand that if you cannot communicate, one of your fundamental rights has been infringed upon. 

We stand at this moment in human history where it is possible to ensure that everyone has access to communication, where traditional barriers to entry into this communications are rapidly being torn down.  In much the same way as we have, as a society, as a human society determined that we're uninterested in world wars any longer, and we are interested in preventing famine and addressing massive health problems, etc., we need to be focusing on communications in much that same way.  When we are looking at the fundamentals of social and economic justice, on a global scale, we need to realize that from the very beginning it has been the case that communications has really determined the health and vibrancy of democratic society. 

I think that's really nice stuff and it's something I wouldn't mind talking to you a lot longer about associated topics, but if I just jump to TV white spaces - I'm surprised how many people still don't understand what's meant by TV white spaces.  Could you describe what's meant by TV white spaces, and then also say why the fairly recent FCC decision was important?

Sure, television white space, as in snow or what you see on the channels when you're flipping through a TV, where there is no signal, where there is no broadcast, what ends up happening in any city or town that has over-the-air television broadcast is you might have a channel, let's call it channel 3.  Channel 3 may be a broadcaster in that local community.  You cannot then have a station on channel 2 or channel 4.  You need to space between these broadcast channels so they don't overlap on one another, so they don't interfere with one another.

What this leads to is a very inefficient use of the television spectrum.  You might have channel 3 and then channel 5 and then channel 7.  What also ends up happening is your neighboring towns cannot use those same channels that you are using.  You can imagine that if you try to fill a piece of paper with circles, you will find there is a lot of empty space.  In much the same way that that happens, television licensure is the same way. 

They draw a circle and they say, "That's channel 3".  No matter how you stack these channels, you always end up with underutilized space.  You have space between channels within a community.  You have space between channels between communities.  All of this, when you look at it, translates to somewhere between a low of about twenty to thirty percent and a high of over eighty percent of television channels that are unutilized. 

What the Television White Space proceedings was, was look, "Rather than just allowing this space to go unutilized, let's start looking at ways we can use the blank channels for innovation, in terms of broadband service, in terms of emergency communications, in terms of all sorts of new uses of this space".  It's very elegant, in that communities that have been least served by television's broadcasters, all of a sudden have access to the most television white space. 

This has been a battle that's been going on for many years, dating back to 2002, but really picked up in 2004, with the FCC saying, "We're going to make a decision on this".  Of course, it took four years to actually achieve a decision, but the decision ended up being, "Yes, we should reutilize these unused spaces". 

Where as the National Association of Broadcasters, the incumbents, the status quo fought against this, tooth-and-nail.  It was a huge political battle to get this done.  A coalition of community organizations, public interest groups, consumer groups, and high tech firms all came out and said, "We support this, we want to see television white space utilized for new and innovative uses". 

The reason why this is important is because it sets this precedent of saying, "Look, if you're not utilizing part of the public airwaves, we should allow devices to use that same space on an opportunistic basis".  It sets a precedent for saying, "If we have this massively underutilized resource, we, the owners of the public spectrum, - it should be entirely legal for us to make use of what we own".

This, of course, scares the bejeezus out of incumbents that have poured billions of dollars into licensing space, on the assumption that they can then keep other people out of that space.  The benefits to the general populace are so enormous, that even the political power of those incumbents was not enough to prevent this decision at the FCC.

Okay, so again, this gives you hope.

My friends often say that I'm a hopeless optimist, but I'm also sort of a pragmatist and looking at the political realities and what's possible.  What I see is that there is a fundamental shift taking place.  It's a generational shift, it's a technological shift, it's a party shift, and it's a lot of things aligning to make more effective use of these sorts of resources. 

Whether it's looking at broadband stimulus, or whether it's looking at the universal service, whether it's looking at network neutrality and carriage, whether it's looking at spectrum allocation and licensure, there is a huge impetus for making more effective uses of these resources, resources that have been underutilized for years, if not decades.  Tie that then, to the notion of things like the U.S. used to lead the world in terms of use and deployment of Internet and broadband infrastructure.  We have systematically, year after year, since the turn of the millennia, fallen further and further behind a growing number of other countries. 

When we look at that, as a country, as a society, we realize that something needs to be changed, from the midst of a massive, multi-year, market failure, a catastrophic market failure.  The market fundamentalism that has driven telecommunications policy for the past eight years is now beginning to give way to a much more pragmatic, society friendly regime.

And that should be nicely timed with the new FCC chairman appointment. 

That is very much the hope.

So, we'll need to track this now.  At the start, you mentioned the Open Technology Initiative.  I'd like to ask what kind of projects the OTI is working on.

The Open Technology Initiative is working on a number of projects around open source, open architecture, and open API systems.  I work at a think-tank so a lot of what we do is looking at what are the differential assessments of open versus proprietary systems or architectures.  How will these affect people, generally, and to concretize that a bit more?

One of the things we're looking at is the different architectures of wireless telephony systems and the hardware that runs on that.  That might be a comparison between the openness of a BlackBerry versus a Google phone, versus an iPhone versus an Openmoko phone, and the pros and cons of each endeavor.  Or, for example, we might be looking at something that's very big yet has not been looked at here in the United States - our healthcare system and portability of patient records, and interoperability of medical equipment.  We might be looking at things like how can we make more efficient use of the public airwaves, and open those up? 

It's really this intersection of technology and policy.  It's an area where, in D.C., you pretty much can't walk three feet without bumping into a lawyer.  We've realized that legal help is fundamentally important to being effective here, in D.C.  In the same way that's true, we need technologists to help us understand what's coming down the pipes, and what's happening with new technologies and the intersections of these new technologies, with the policies and regulations that we're passing. 

This might be looking at what are ISP's doing, in terms of throttling user services and applications?  A classic example would be Comcast, which is a major cable provider, really blocked BitTorrent, file-sharing protocol.  Comcast claimed they were not, and we needed technologists to step in and document exactly what Comcast was doing.  They eventually capitulated [laughs] and agreed, in fact, "Yes, fine, you caught us.  We are blocking BitTorrent, and we will stop now". 

It might also be that we're looking at various ways in which fair-use rights, in terms of copyright, are being curtailed in next generation operating systems.  Windows 7 is the new one that's coming down the pipes, and may have a lot of digital rights management that doesn't just protect copyright holders, but actually infringes upon our constitutionally, guaranteed fair-use rights as a populace.

These are all areas where, until you really take a deep dive into the technologies themselves, it's very difficult to understand the impacts that these technologies have on regulations and policies that are being put in place.

It might be - well, I won't say might be.  It is off topic, but you mentioned an OS, so the geek in me can't help but ask; are you saying Windows 7 will have something worse than what Mac now has, as well, in a new Mac - HDCP.

Yes, it's unclear exactly what Windows is going to do, but from I've heard, they are aligning themselves closer and closer with the Motion Picture Association of America, the RIAA, other major copyright holders, and these copyright holders have often been so incredibly concerned about things like piracy, and protecting their copyright, that they have had no compunctions about stepping all over our fair-use rights. 

I look at that combine that is developing, where most people that buy a computer are still buying a computer with a Windows operating system, and often don't have any other choice but to buy their computer with a Window operating system.  For me, when I look at Section Eight of the Constitution, which defines copyright, and also defines fair use as an important caveat, the notion that I buy a computer that comes with an operating system that infringes upon my constitutionally protected rights is of deep concern.  As we've seen, Vista had a lot of this in place already.  As we've seen this sort of rollback of our fair-use rights, I think it's fundamentally important to understand the technologies, to understand what these technologies are doing, and to fight against this diminution of these rights that are inherent in the United States.

Okay, so you're not a big fan of the personal computer becoming a glorified DVD player, with a play button, a pause button, and a pay button.  [Laughs]

Exactly, in fact, I'm a huge proponent of empowering end users to find, for themselves, what they view as fair use, and to utilize these as tools for whatever means or needs that they have.  We are allowed, as consumers who buy CD's DVD's, etc., to make copies for our own use.  If you have a technology that prevents you from doing that because of fear that you will share those files or media with other people, the notion that you would infringe upon your rights, in order to protect you from doing something that's illegal; it's like making cars that can only go 25 mph because of the fear that you might speed.  It's a ridiculous way to treat a tool that should be open.  You can kill somebody with a hammer; we don't make hammers illegal because they're a useful tool.  When you take a computer and gut it so it can't be used for anything illegal, you take a computer and make it into a relatively useless tool. 

Again, I love this topic because my favorite book is Yochai Benkler's Wealth of Networks, and it's certainly interesting times we're living in and what's going to take place over the next two to five or six years, i's going to determine a generation or two down the line.

But, jumping back to wireless - what do you actually think is next in spectrum policy reform?

What do I expect next?

Yeah

I think that there will be a big battle, over network neutrality, in Congress.  I expect that Senator Dorgan is going to drop a new network neutrality bill, probably in early February.  That will be on a lot of peoples' agendas.  I think that at the FCC, we will be, first and foremost, looking at how do we transition into this new regime.  I think a lot of the battles there are going to be much more about educating a new staff that's being brought in.  I think through 2009, I see things like digital rights management growing in import.  I think that is one of these areas that really have not been explored to the extent it needs to be explored.  I think that we will be battling over what it means to have universal broadband access and whether we should, as a country, prioritize that or not.  Obviously, I'm hopeful that we will prioritize it but there are a lot of groups and organizations that really want to ensure that a universal service fund enriches the incumbents without necessarily creating a competitive marketplace.

Okay, you had mentioned, again at the start, opportunistic spectrum access.  How do you think that will change things?

It has the potential to allow consumers to buy equipment that, in effect, makes everyone a broadcaster.  You can imagine a much more vibrant public sphere, in terms of media production and dissemination.  It means an increased flow of communications and information.  It means that the large barrier to entry, in terms of not too many people being able to afford either to buy or build their own radio station or television station, but can webcast, can podcast, can videocast, and can do all these things that are possible with new technologies.  But, they often lack the capacity, in terms of the broadband capacity, to do really innovative stuff such as live broadcasting and all these other media.  That is going to be coming to the fore in the near future.  We will have to address this as a society.  Much the same way that we provide parks, schools, and roads to the general populace, do we also say everyone needs to have access to broadband connectivity, as well?

Okay, I have one final question for you.  I would like to know - it's kind of two questions.  What do you see as the future of telecommunications infrastructure?  What will it look like and how will we get from where we are today, to there?

The future is absolutely going to be a hybrid infrastructure.  You will have fiber connectivity.  You want the fiber because it has capacity and reliability, but it will also be this hybrid with a wireless communication system, which will provide cost efficiencies and mobility.  Together, they will hopefully look like a seamless roaming between these different media - wireline and wireless - seamless roaming across multiple, different systems and networks.  They might go from EVDO to cellular, to Wi-Fi, to a wire line plug-in, depending on what's most effective for your needs.  All of this is predicated upon an open networking system where interoperability is paramount and where users are empowered to jump amongst multiple, different networks.  That's really, where these battles are going to be fought.  The telco incumbents really want to be sure that their users stay on their network and really don't like the notion of freeing up users to jump to whatever is most effective for end users. 

If I were to point to the future of communications, it is in this tension between end-user empowerment, edge-to-edge networking and command-and-control infrastructures that attempt to lock down users and networks and keep you on a specific network. 

Okay, would you ultimately like to see a day come where we have glass between us, or what we might call "super-high broadband" and peer-to-peer?

Yes, absolutely - I would love to see a day come where we are no longer having to worry about whether we have capacity or whether we have a mobility, not just to connect from anywhere, but to connect in the most efficient and effective manner.  Cell phones as an example, there is no reason, if you and I are in the same building, that we should have to be routed through a central tower.  The only reason why that architecture has been put in place is because in the United States, I get charged on the way up that tower and you get charged on the way down from that tower.  The network owner gets to charge twice for that call, even though for you and I, we would have better, faster and cheaper communications if our devices were connected directly to one another. 

I would like to cut out middlemen whenever possible.  I'd like to cut out hierarchies that are unnecessary for effective communications, whenever possible.  I would like to cut out tolling, adding expense for no other reason than you control the network, whenever possible.  Those battles between a distributed, peer-to-peer infrastructure, an opportunistic infrastructure and a command-and-control tolled infrastructure are really where the near future - the next half decade - the battles are all going to be fought.

Well, Sascha, I can say this; I hope you come to the eComm Conference every year.

Absolutely, it sounds like a great event.  I'm very much looking forward to attending.

Okay, so I very much look forward to the keynote that you're giving there and I wholeheartedly say thank you very much for your time and sharing your expertise.

You're very welcome, my pleasure.

Okay, have a great day, and thank you again.

You too - take care.

Bye

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

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."