Communications

White spaces could be the broadcasters best hope

For years, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) fought the White Spaces Coalition and others interested in making US "TV white spaces" available for broadband, Wi-Fi or indeed, any new purpose. When the FCC voted 5-0 to permit license exempt use of TV White Spaces, the industry brought suit in Federal court. And they did this, despite rules in the FCC's decision that are so restrictive that, for now, white spaces devices are doomed to commercial failure. The NAB are savvy in the ways of Washington

But fighting the White Space Coalition is short sighted. The NAB faces a much bigger and more powerful enemy — mobile operators.

The White Spaces Coalition merely seeks permission to use spectrum where NAB members are not using it, i.e. on a non-interference basis as "secondary users" with purely secondary rights.  

The mobile industry wants it all.  They'd prefer that broadcast spectrum be taken back and auctioned off for mobile use. Discussions on recapturing broadcast spectrum ramped up after an October comment by FCC broadband czar Blair Levin. For example see the transcript of this December 1st panel discussion. Or consider last week's appointment of Duke Law Professor Stuart Benjamin as the FCC's first Distinguished Scholar in Residence. Benjamin is a vocal proponent of reclaiming the TV broadcast spectrum!

Broadcasters beware!  

Unlike the White Spaces Coalition, the mobile operators are political experts. They are part of a 100+ year telecom lobbying heritage. The Bell System was lobbying government agencies before the broadcast industry existed. Now Congress is considering spectrum policy. The FCC is considering spectrum policy.  

Broadcasters may eventually extort large sums of money out of the public, but over the next decade they will lose more and more of their spectrum.  I am no fan of the broadcast industry. Even after converting to more modern "digital" broadcasting, they are sitting on spectrum they don't need in order to deliver a limited number of channels of broadcast TV to the 14% of households who don't subscribe to cable. I'm one of those 14% and I don't even watch TV, so I have no interest in broadcasters' survival. But I can't help noticing there is one thing broadcasters could do that would block mobile operators from taking over broadcast spectrum.

White spaces can save broadcasters' spectrum rights

If license exempt white space devices are commercially successful, it will become increasingly difficult and then politically impossible for Congress or the FCC to recapture TV spectrum for exclusive use by the mobile industry. If Wi-Fi, WiMAX and other consumer devices appear using TV frequencies, it will become harder and harder to displace these consumer uses and recapture the exclusive use the mobile industry requires.  

So, if the broadcast industry really wants to hold onto their current spectrum rights, they should get as many non-interfering "secondary users" into their band as possible.  Otherwise, they will eventually lose their primary rights to the quest for more mobile broadband.

Wireless tipping point! My presentation at EU eComm today

My presentation this morning was entitled "A Wireless Tipping Point, Open Spectrum Implications."

A Wireless Tipping Point, Open Spectrum Implications

View more documents from Brough Turner.

The abstract:

Are we using radio spectrum efficiently? No.

Is this likely to change? Not soon.

"Smart" radios have the potential to support much more efficient and productive use of spectrum, but spectrum regulation is a political issue with well established stakeholders. What's more, our limited experiments with commons-based spectrum management have had widely differing results: WiFi, enormous success; UltraWideBand, disappointment. WiFi's success happened in "junk" spectral bands where established players weren't interested. That will be difficult to repeat, but Brough will describe some very simple physical principals of radio propagation which, when combined with the next five years of Moore's law progress in semiconductors, suggest a path forward that's very different from TV white spaces. Indeed, the most important result of regulatory decisions on UltraWideBand and TV white spaces is they validate the concept of secondary access.

Leaving for eComm in Amsterdam - Will tweet conference talks

I'll be leaving for Amsterdam this afternoon to attend Fall eComm 2009. 

I plan to record my notes as I did at the HD Communications summit in NYC in September, i.e. I'll write my notes on Twitter in real time and then, after the conference, collate the results into one giant blog post (for my own sake as much as for yours, esteemed reader).

If you're interested in live coverage, follow my tweets at: http://twitter.com/brough

Whoever and whatever you follow, I assume the common tag people will be using (as before) will be "eComm" so that's another approach...

Shameless self-promotion:  My part in the conference:

On Wednesday morning, I'm speaking on Open Spectrum issues.  I will point out some laws of physics and emerging technology changes that, together, suggest a new, better focus for open spectrum efforts.

On Wednesday afternoon, I'm a panelist on Andy Abramson's panel, "Are current wireline and wireless eco-systems still relevant?."

And then on Friday afternoon, I'm moderating a panel that I've organized on "Spectrum 2.0 - What's really happening?"

eComm agenda is on-line ―Check out the speakers!

There's a fascinating agenda building for eComm in Amsterdam in October.  Here's the latest list of talks, but what's best is the set of speakers who are giving these talks.  I personally know quite a few and know of many more (who I look forward to meeting).  The group includes a preponderance of innovators -- new views on what's happening, new ideas for how to drive change.  If you don't read through this list of talks, look at the speakers list here.  Then come to Amsterdam and meet these people.

21st Century Economics: Lessons for Telcos - Umair Haque (Havas Media Lab)

Advances In Spectrum Transparency, Software Defined Radio/Cognitive Radio - Darrin M Mylet (Spectru-Station)

Almost all Marketing & Product Management of Telco Services is Wrong - Rudolf van der Berg (Logica)

Current Trends in Community Wireless Networks and Beyond - Aaron Kaplan (FunkFeuer)

Death of the Handset: Evolving from Mobile Devices to the Mobile Digital Life - Mark Rolston (frog Design)

Edge As Value - Value As Edge - Graham Brierton (Voicesage)

Enslaving Humans using Communications Technology for Fun and Profit - Thomas McCarthy-Howe (Jaduka)

Entrepreneurial Advantages with New Open-Source Technologies - Jay Phillips (Voxeo)

European Telecoms 2015: Silent Death or Generative Bazaar? - Julien Salanave (IDATE Telecoms)

Finding Disruption - Michael Jackson (Mangrove Capital)

Goodbye Minutes, Hello Moments - Martin Geddes (BT)

Google Wave - David Wang (Google)

How the "Internet of Things" will Change the Way we Connect - Alexandra Deschamps-Sonsino (Tinker.it)

How to get More Value out of Customer Interactions by Blending Online with Voice - Stefan Hopmann (Swisscom)

Humans as a Service: Abstracting Communications to Reach New Applications - Todd Landry (NEC Sphere)

Is LTE being Held Hostage by Ordinary Voice Telephony? - Dean Bubley (Disruptive Analysis)

Lifestyle Segmentation from Carrier Location and Call Data - Greg Skibiski (Sense Networks)

Lifestyle Segmentation from Carrier Location and Call Data - Tony Jebara (Sense Networks)

LTE - Long Term Employment or Less Than Expected? - Moray Rumney (Agilent)

Open Access Makes Economic Sense - Benoît Felten (Yankee Group)

Open Screen Project: Next Generation Contextual Applications - Andrew Shorten (Adobe)

Opening of the Terahertz Region - Robert Horvitz (Open Spectrum Foundation)

Opportunities in Post-Telecom Connectivity - Bob Frankston (Frankston Innovating)

Post Financial Trauma - How is the Telecom Value Chain Now Positioned? - James Enck (mCapital)

Redefining Gifts in the Digital Space - Katie Lips (Little World Gifts)

Slowing Down Communication: Designs Inspired by Quality, Intimacy, and Humanity - Stefan Agamanolis (Distance Lab)

Spectrum 2.0 – What's Really Happening? - Brough Turner (Ashtonbrooke)

Stealth Approaches to Legislating Open Spectrum - Brough Turner (Ashtonbrooke)

Technology and Biological Evolution: What This Means for Media and Communications Technologies - Tomas Rawlings (University of the West of England)

Telemedia Futures - Gerd Leonhard (MediaFuturist.com)

The Emerging Telecology of Social Networks and the Status Update - Stuart Henshall (Phweet)

The Future of Interconnection - Rudolf van der Berg (Logica)

The Global Battle for Communications Justice: An Open Spectrum Manifesto - Sascha Meinrath (New America Foundation)

The Next Wave of Communications Applications - Cullen Jennings (Cisco)

The Practical Edge of Speech Technology - Moshe Yudkowsky (Disaggregate)

Ubiquitous Voice over Broadband - is There a Future Role for the Smart Pipe? - Martin Taylor (MetaSwitch)

Unlicensed Spectrum: Future Regulation - Prof. William Webb (Ofcom)

Video Killed the Telephone Czar? - Jan Linden (Global IP Solutions)

When Will HD Voice Become a Reality? - Martyn Davies (Dialogic)

What Would Telephony be Like if we Designed it Today? - Matt Ranney (RebelVox)

If you've read this far, there's a 10% discount via this registration link - register here.  And for more information, visit http://eComm.ec.  This one conference is at the top of my list for:  interesting, productive and an excellent set of contacts.

eComm in Amsterdam ― shameless self promotion

I've just wrapped up a focused effort that delayed blogging and many other things.  As a result, I finally submitted the detailed description for my plenary slot at eComm Fall 2009 which will be happening in Amsterdam October 28th-30th.  My abstract is not up on the website yet, but hopefully the next few weeks will bring details on my talk and many others.  For now, let me just say my title is
   Stealth Approaches to Legislating Open Spectrum
in which I propose what I hope is a novel approach to dramatically expanding the capabilities and commercial success of license-exempt consumer devices.

This will be the first time eComm has been held in Europe but, based on the first two eComm conferences (2008 and Spring 2009), this is the meeting for the future of communications.  It's not a trade show and it's not a mass event.  Instead, it's three days of rapid paced information ― high level, insightful and non-commercial.  Even more important, the people are very, very interesting.  It's not cheap, but it costs less if you sign up now (especially if you sign up before July 21st).  What's more, because I'm such an enthusiast, and I'm on the conference's advisory board, I've been given a discount code.  For an additional 20% off type in "BroughTurner" as the eComm discount code, i.e. where the registration form says "Click here to enter a promotional code."

I hope to see you in Amsterdam in October.

Opportunity Doesn't Always Knock. Sometimes It Calls.

The mammoth telecom industry ― fixed and cellular ― is in the process of being re-written. You can stand on the side and be written into history or join with the growing community that's writing the future. Opportunities have never been so great ― to influence how humanity connects, communicates and collaborates and to profit from radical restructuring.

Open Spectrum slide deck is now on-line

Here's the slide deck I used at last Thursday's meeting of the Boston section of the IEEE Communications Society.

Open Spectrum - Physics, Engineering, Commerce and Politics

View more presentations from Brough Turner.

Among other things, I debunk the following spectrum myths:

• Spectrum is scarce
• 4G is the future of wireless
• Auctions drive efficient use of spectrum
• Spectrum utilization requires massive investments
• TV spectrum is “beach front” property

The full write up from the IEEE announcement:

Communications Society

7:00 PM, Thursday, May 14

The Open Spectrum Potential for Evolutionary and Revolutionary Technology and Business Solutions

Brough Turner; Founder and CTO at Ashtonbrooke and Chief Strategy Officer at Dialogic

In November 2008, the FCC voted unanimously to permit unlicensed wireless devices that operate in the empty "white space" between TV channels. Their “TV White Spaces” decision was the culmination of many years of proceedings, but it's just one step in a much larger discussion, commonly referred to as “Open Spectrum.”

Our use of radio spectrum is regulated under principles that were established in the 1920s, when radio spectrum appeared to be a scarce resource and frequency was the only reasonable basis for allocation. Today’s wireless technology vastly exceeds anything imagined in the 1920s and from physical principles we know that many, many orders of magnitude further improvement are possible. Already the application of new approaches in just a few slivers of spectrum has fostered new industries – WiFi, Bluetooth and more.

The presentation discusses the predecessors, potentiality, and directions for Open Spectrum, including:

• A brief history spectrum regulation from before the Radio Act of 1927 to today.
• Results from measurements of actual spectrum utilization in New York and Washington DC.
• An overview of "Open Spectrum" experiments to date, including “license exempt sharing” in the 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands and different forms of "secondary use" including UWB, 3650 MHz and now TV White Spaces.
• The physics of propagation and its impact on the range of White Spaces services vs. WiFi, WiMAX, 3GSM and LTE.
• IEEE 802.11y protocols and the prospects for expanding secondary use beyond TV White Spaces.

Brough Turner is founder and CTO at Ashtonbrooke and Chief Strategy Officer at Dialogic. Formerly he was founder and CTO at Natural MicroSystems and NMS Communications. He speaks and writes on a variety of communications topics including 3G and 4G wireless tutorials. He presented most recently at the 4G Wireless Evolution conference in February. Brough is an electrical engineering graduate of MIT and has 25 years experience in telecommunications.

Open Spectrum ― I'm presenting at an IEEE meeting this Thursday

This Thursday evening (May 14th), I'll be discussing Open Spectrum at the May meeting of the Boston chapter of the IEEE Communications Society.  My working title:  Open Spectrum ― Physics, Engineering, Commerce and Politics.  This is a technical audience, so we'll touch the physics of electromagnetic propagation and examine radio engineering solutions as they stood in the 1920s, as they are today and where they're likely to take us in the coming decade.  But we'll also look at the politics of spectrum regulation and the commercial implications of recent developments.

Just to get your attention:

• We'll explain why the TV White Spaces (TVWS) won't be considered  "beach front spectrum" in the future, and
• Why the lasting impact of the FCC's recent TVWS decision may be what it does for "secondary access"

If you're in the greater Boston area and at all interested in spectrum policy or the commercial evolution of WiFi and other unlicensed technologies, please stop by. 

The meeting begins at 7 p.m. and the presentation soon after at the Verizon Labs, 117 West Street, Waltham. The meeting is preceded by an optional dinner at Bertucci's, Winter St, Waltham, at 5:30 p.m.  The meeting is open to all, but please let Paul Zorfass know if you plan to attend the dinner at Bertucci’s. Paul can be contacted at paul.zorfass@embeddedtrade.com.  More directions and details here.

Spectrum Transparency: Can the US catch up with France?

Richard Whitt has a good article, Taking stock of the nations airwaves, on the Google Public Policy Blog.  He focuses on the Radio Spectrum Inventory Act, a bill introduced in the US Senate by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Olivia Snowe (R-ME).

It's hard to argue spectrum policy if you can't actually determine who has what rights in which parts of the radio spectrum.  This bill is a start.

For a first cut at what we should aspire to, look at this site by the Autorité de Régulation des Communications électroniques et des Postes - the French equivalent of the US FCC.  Try typing in a frequency or a frequency range; then hit "Rechercher."

I haven't figured out how to determine who owns individual licenses to spectrum in France and, of course, that is critical.  The proposed US law, S.649, explicitly calls for such information to be gathered and made available to the public on a website.  Let's hope this passes.

I'm off to the Emerging Communications Conference in San Francisco

It's snowing in Boston and my American flight has been cancelled but Virgin America claims their 8:35am flight is going to leave on time.  So here I am in the Virgin gate area.  Wish me luck.

At this point there are a ton of people I'm hoping to hook up with at eComm 2009.  The agenda looks really good.  And, of course I'm looking forward to good discussions around two favorite policy topics: broadband access and wireless spectrum.

My talk on Wednesday is: Structural Bypass: A simple, proven path to “Real Broadband.”

While the US struggles to define "broadband," high speed Internet access (100 Mbps & above) is widely available at modest cost in several countries and quite a few more cities. So far, US political discussion has largely neglected these successes. Brough will point out what's common among diverse international success stories and propose a path for the US that has proven to work elsewhere, despite established monopolies and political processes dominated by vested interests.

On Thursday, I've organized a panel entitled:  Spectrum 2.0 - What's really happening?

WiFi, UltraWideBand and now TV White Spaces represent new commons-based approaches to radio spectrum regulation. While some advocate commons-based approaches for all wireless spectrum, that's hardly acceptable to broadcasters or the mobile phone industry. By questioning a diverse panel of industry experts, we will expose the roots of today's controversy - technical, commercial and political - and see what's likely to occur over the next two to five years and in the long term.

The panelists are top notch:  Richard Bennett, Maura Corbett, Peter Ecclesine, Darrin Mylet and Richard Whitt.

If you're attending, please say hello.

Wireless Tutorial slides posted

The slides we used for our four part Wireless Tutorial at the 4G Wireless Evolution conference in Miami last week are now up on the web.

History and Evolution of Mobile Radio

Part One covers the history of mobile wireless from the earliest days

to the latest 4G technology.

Part one is also available as a webinar recorded in 3 sections last fall.

IEEE Wireless Ethernet Keeps Going and Growing

Part two covers the IEEE wireless systems:  WiFi, WiMAX and more...

Mobile Broadband: New Applications and New Business Models

Part three covers emerging world of mobile broadband access and some of the applications it enables.

White Spaces and Open spectrum Issues

Finally, part four focuses on Open spectrum and the recent decision by the FCC to permit unlicensed devices to operate on unoccupied TV channels - the so called TV White Spaces.  In the end, there's alot more that will be possible eventually...

Sasha Meinrath has a good explanation of "Interference Temperature"

Sasha Meinrath is Research Director for the New America Foundation's Wireless Futures Program and will be one of the speakers at eComm 2009.  I've just read his comments in a recent interview by Lee Dryburgh on the eComm blog.  Sasha has a particularly good explanation of an arcane concept, interference temperature.

Why does this matter?  It's one way to open up otherwise assigned radio spectrum to new uses without impeding existing uses.  The FCC made an attempt to float the idea in 2003 but after much comment (and pressure from those with existing licenses), they backed off in May 2007.  It's still a good idea, so perhaps Sasha's explanation will help get it back on the table.

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 way, at 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 <permitted> 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.

Thank you Sasha.  That beats all the gobbeldygook spouted between 2003 and 2007.

I look forward to talking with Sasha at eComm 2009 in San Francisco in March.

Best conference bet for 2009 ― eComm 2009, March 3-5, San Francisco

I attended a number of conferences in 2008, both interesting and not so interesting.  One conference stands out, for the range of interesting speakers and the variety of interesting people I met.  That was the first Emerging Communications Conference, eComm 2008, organized by Lee Dryburgh.  Many of talks from this conference are available on Slideshare and as podcasts on IT Conversations.

eComm 2009 is scheduled to take place at the San Fransico Airport Marriott, March 3-5, 2009.  I highly recommend you check it out.

This is not a trade show with vendors hawking today's products and multiple tracks full of vendor product pitches. 

Presenters have been chosen for the quality of their proposals:  is it new?  is it disruptive?  what will the audience learn?  (As an adviser, I've been in on those discussions).  Like last year, the format is one track spread over three days, with 15 minute presentations, 5 minute lightning presentations, panel discussions and social time.  It all adds up to a veritable fire hose of information.

There's a list of speakers here.  Major topics for 2009 (so far) include:

* Mobile Social Networking (MoSoSo)
* Open Handsets & the Open Ecosystem
* Both Voice and Video Evolution
* Convergence of Media with Personal Communications
* Open Spectrum
* Open Communication Platforms
* Leveraging Cloud Computing
* Social Computing
* Towards 4G Wireless
* P2P and Decentralization of Telecoms
* Communications enabling business processes, especially B2C
* New Forms of Contactability and Connectability
* Emerging Markets

And last, but by no means least, if you mention my name you get 20% off.  More specifically, if you enter the promo code "BroughTurner" (case-sensitive) at the appropriate point during registration, you'll get 20% off the registration fee.  This works now, while early bird rates are in effect, and I'm told it will also work right up to the last minute ("late", not on-site registration), although then it's 20% off the full conference rate, and only if the event is not sold out!

I hope to see you there.

TV White Spaces - Fundamentals misunderstood

The FCC's recent decision to allow secondary use of the TV bands by license-exempt devices is a political breakthrough we can all rejoice in, but the widely claimed technology benefits are at least partly bogus.

Here's a typical claim:

This is the same spectrum we have referred to as "prime beachfront property."  < ... >  These lower frequency signals lose less power as they travel, hence requiring fewer base stations to cover an area. They also feature far better penetration characteristics, which is key to improving indoor operation.

This is true of deployed systems today, but for engineering reasons, not due to the physics of electromagnetic waves.

Today, wireless technology is advancing at such a pace that higher frequencies, for example at 5 GHz, will be more useful than TV White Space, perhaps within the time it takes TVWS equipment to get widely deployed -- certainly within 5-10 years.  What's happening is MIMO and advanced MIMO driven by emerging WiFi (802.11n), WiMAX and LTE systems.  As these systems get developed and deployed, signals at 5 GHz will achieve similar or greater range than TVWS, similar or better building penetration, lower costs and substantially higher carrying capacity.

The reason buildings appear to attenuate high frequency signals (like 5 GHz) more than those in the TVWS bands is, as radio signals hit the different materials that make up walls, windows, furniture, and other building elements, they scatter (due to diffraction and reflection).  With conventional receivers, only the primary signal is detected while scattered signals appear as noise, degrading the received signal.  Shorter wavelength signals are scattered by smaller objects and thus by more of the building's elements.  The higher the frequency the shorter the wavelength, so it's higher frequencies that experience more scattering.  But if you have multiple antennas and multiple receiver channels (MIMO), you overcome scattering.

Indeed with MIMO, the tables are turned.  MIMO systems use multiple antennas, typically separated by several wavelengths, or beamforming with many antenna elements each separated by 1/2 wavelength, but that's a problem for TVWS sysems.  At 5 GHz, a wavelength is 6 cm or just over 2 inches, but TVWS wavelengths range from 1.4 meters (55 inches) to 5.6 meters (over 18 feet).  Separating multiple antennas by several wavelengths is a problem at TVWS frequencies.  It might be feasible at a fixed base station but it's too bulky for a residential device and completely nuts for a laptop computer or a mobile phone.  So expect MIMO to be widely deployed at 5 GHz, but not so widely or not at all in the TVWS bands.

There are many other reasons why physics favors 5 GHz over the TVWS bands, but MIMO is the one place where engineering is catching up with physics as we speak.

iPhone, Android, 700 MHz — What maximizes wireless innovation?

At the Emerging Communications Conference eComm 2008, I'm moderating a panel "Wireless Innovation, with or without operators."  This will be a discussion — smart people from differing camps responding to (hopefully) probing questions from yours truly, and the audience.  Points of view represented include Google Android, J2ME/JavaFX Mobile, iPhoneWebDev.com, Skype and Trolltech Qtopia (Nokia), plus Chris Sacca, formerly head of Google's wireless initiatives.  I've been thinking about subjects and questions for the panel.  As a start, I'll set down my current views, then seek others' views and questions.

2007 Breakthrough — Public discussion of "Open" wireless networks

For the first time ever, US mainstream media is talking about open handsets and open networks.  It started with the iPhone launch in June, as people discussed pros and cons of the Apple-AT&T lock in.  Then Google proposed, and the FCC partially adopted, a set of open access criteria for the 700 MHz auctions that are currently in progress.  Finally, speculation about a G-Phone got resolved when Google announced the Open Handset Alliance and Android open source mobile phone software.

What's Next?

In the near term, we won't see open wireless Internet access at 700 MHz — that will take years.  The 700 MHz spectrum doesn't even become available until analog TV is turned off (scheduled for February 2009).  Then building out a network takes time, independent of whether it's WiMAX, HSDPA, EVDO or LTE.  And at this point, neither base stations nor mobile devices are available for the 700 MHz band.  Vendor's will talk a good story, but are unlikely to make major product investments until they know they have orders in the pipeline.

There are two areas that should drive innovation in the US wireless market over the next 24 months.

• Affordable open mobile Internet access as a result of competition, i.e. in advance of 700 MHz
• Further innovations in the handset space

Open mobile Internet access in advance of 700 MHz services

As I've pointed out elsewhere, US competition to offer mobile Internet access is about to ratchet up significantly, as T-Mobile USA uses the spectrum they acquired in the 2006 AWS auctions to go head-to-head with AT&T, Verizon and Sprint.  In 2006, T-Mobile USA spent more than $4B to buy additional spectrum that will allow them full national coverage. Then they committed another $2.7B to build out 3G mobile coverage on this spectrum.  Recently, they've disclosed $10B of investment for 2007-2009.   In addition to these four cellular networks, there's at least the threat of a national WiMAX network, between Clearwire and/or Sprint.  Finally, WiFi access points continue to proliferate.  Four plus competitors is enough to unbalance a market, so it's likely we'll see affordable flat rate data bundles that are effectively open access at some point in the next 24 months.

Handset innovation

Here's the real excitement, at least in the next 24 months.  The iPhone is truly a break through device, if nothing else it's the first mobile Internet browser that really works.  Every other handset vendor has embraced iPhone concepts and is scrambling to bring out their own next generation devices.

Meanwhile phones based on the Android stack should show up later in 2008.  During the next 24 months we'll see if the Google initiative has a significant impact on handset software.  Remember, Google doesn't have to make money on their software (as Microsoft does with Windows Mobile) or on handsets (as Nokia does with Symbian).

Finally, there's an open question of where, in the handset stack, maximum innovation will occur.  John Puterbaugh distinguishes five layers where innovation might occur:

1. Operating Systems and Mobile Platforms - Symbian, RIM, Windows Mobile, Palm, Java FX Mobile, Android, LiMo
2. Application UI Frameworks - Series 60, Qtopia, uiONE, GNOME / GMAE, KDE, GTK
3. Runtime environments - Java, JavaScript, Flash, BREW, and various Mobile Internet Browsers
4. Media Players - Windows Media Player, Quicktime, Real, Ogg Vorbis
5. Applications - Celltop, Yahoo! Go, Nokia WidSets, and various Mobile AJAX “players”

I might have separated out mobile Internet browsers and mobile AJAX as an area that deserves a layer of it's own, but you get the idea.  Yes, there is no single answer for mobile application development and that's a problem, but it's also prompting an enormous amount of competition and innovation.

Do you have questions for the panel?

I look forward to a lively discussion at eComm 2008 in Mountain View California on March 14th and hope to see you there.

In the spirit of full disclosure, NMS Communications is a member of, and contributor to, the Open Handset Alliance, primarily through our LiveWire Mobile subsidiary.  But then we're also active in various GSM Association working groups including contributing to the GSMA's (IMS-based) Video Share Project and we've delivered IMS handset software for Symbian, Windows Mobile and several other environments.

Google is playing to win in the 700 MHz auctions

Many say Google will bid to lose in the upcoming 700 MHz auctions and many more are equivocating.  The idea is Google's entry alone will induce enough openness, and besides they couldn't afford to become an operator.  This shows a total lack of understanding!

Google is run by idealists who want to change the world and have the money to undertake grand projects.

They are already seeking to index, and make available, all the world's information. As part of this vision they are scanning all existing books and fighting the legal battles this implies.  When their own video repository failed to gain traction, they bought YouTube for $1.65B, and took on their legal hassles. Most recently their Palimpsest project is going to host enormous scientific databases for free.  In short Google is not afraid to spend money or take large risks, including legal risks, to accomplish something they believe in.

Critical for Google's vision, and for their business, is open Internet access.  Fixed access is relatively open today, but mobile is a big problem.  So Google won't seek a little opening on the part of some US operators.  Google needs open mobile access, i.e. dumb pipes, which means the total destruction of existing mobile operator business models.

They've already started from the edge with the Open Handset Alliance and the Android open-source mobile handset stack. Google's made a major investment here, not to compete for revenue on handset software or to control applications on edge devices, but to tip the balance from operators to the edge.  First and foremost, Android is an open platform to encourage innovation.  It's also free.  Google doesn't need or expect a direct return on this investment.

The 700 MHz auctions are just the next step.  Again, look for something unconventional.  Google doesn't need or want to become a mobile operator.  They want to create an industry where mobile dumb pipes are widely available.

 

Assuming Google wins, what might they do?

This is speculation on my part, but a good plan might be two fold. 

First pick the latest mass market technology for mobile broadband access, probably mobile WiMAX, and set up a program to foster numerous independent wireless ISPs (WISPs) rolling out services on Google's frequencies.  In the 1990s, the US had thousands of ISPs providing dial up access over traditional phone lines.  The goal here would be to duplicate that entrepreneurial flurry for both fixed and mobile wireless access.

You may argue fixed is OK as services are local, but for mobile you really need regional and national coverage.  Yes, but Google themselves could offer WISPs the opportunity to participate in a federation for national roaming, perhaps using Google Checkout for payments.

Second, formalize a set of rules for smart-radios based on the work they've been doing for open access to TV White Space.  Throw open their spectrum to anyone who's willing to use appropriate smart radio technology, thus fostering long term innovation.  Open access in the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands has certainly fostered innovation.  Google could achieve something similar.

These two steps, a mass market technology like WiMAX for rapid deployment, and open access for innovation, yield the maximum long term benefit for this spectrum and increase the likelihood that other countries will follow the US lead (as the world has done for 2.4 GHz and WiFi).

========================================================

 

Michael Stanford on Brough Turner on Network Neutrality

A few weeks ago, Michael Stanford and I had a brief email exchange on Network Neutrality.  In it I gave my current thoughts and included some links to blog posts I've written, over the past 2+ years, touching on Internet access and/or network neutrality.  The problem of course, is that it's my blog, so I've written short posts, mostly in response to things I'd just read.  Nowhere are the posts organized, and I've certainly never written a proper paper on the subject.

Now I'm flattered to find that Michael has written, in his wirevolution blog, an excellent summary of my various posts entitled "Brough Turner on Network Neutrality."  I should probably write that paper, but thanks to Michael's review, I now have an excellent excuse for further delay.  :-)

Conversations at a football game - Open spectrum for laymen

I just found out about a wonderful explanation of open spectrum that Tim Shepard submitted to the FCC in 2002. When I explain what's possible in open spectrum I typically make analogies to human vision in the presence of sunlight.  Tim's explanation is in terms of sound and human hearing, in a football stadium!

What is Open Spectrum?

Every national government regulates the use of wireless spectrum - a result of interference problems that arose in the early decades of the 20th century. Since then, there's been enormous progress in wireless technology. Unfortunately we prohibit the use of this new technology in almost all of the spectrum. This has enormous cost for society. Consider where would our economy be if computers only used technology which existed in 1953 (the year current US color TV broadcasting standards were frozen)? Consider, under current regulations, most wireless spectrum is effectively empty most of the time, even in major cities like New York, London, Tokyo or Beijing.

Today, it's possible to design robust wireless systems that would function reliably even if there were no spectrum regulations at all. Unfortunately, currently deployed wireless systems (radio, TV, navigation, etc.) depend upon current regulations for their reliable operation so, as Tim Shepard puts it, "The path into the future will be tricky."

None-the-less, we owe it to ourselves to navigate that tricky path. If nothing else, we need spectrum to provide "broadband" in rural areas around the world, and to provide high capacity mobile connectivity in both urban and rural areas.

Other sources:

• Wikipedia
• Open Spectrum FAQ
• Open Spectrum: A Path to Ubiquitous Connectivity
• The Open Spectrum Foundation
• Radio Revolution, by Kevin Werbach

F2C Continues

Martin Geddes gave the best presentation of morning. He was speaking from notes and promised me he'd post a summary in his blog.  Meanwhile, here's something he wrote on the subject in early February.

Addendum:  Martin has just posted a summary of his speech at F2C.

F2C - First Impressions

I'm at Freedom to Connect (F2C) blogging live (a first for me!). It's in Washington DC area (well, Silver Springs MD) and it's very US-centric. One of my concerns in coming was that the conference would be buried in discussions of Network Neutrality - something I regard as a distraction - and other current discussions without consideration of long term issues.  If anything, political change takes time, frequently years, so one should really think about the long term.

Indeed, the first speaker was FCC Commissioner Michael Copps whose talk addressed Network Neutrality and the recent history of who did what to whom.

Luckily, in David Isenberg's opening talk, he emphasized that Network Neutrality is only a means to an end and probably not the most efficient means. More important are actions that could promote true competition in first mile connectivity.  He mentioned access to more wireless spectrum, for example, the unused or white space in the TV bands and open access to rights-of-way.  He even used my favorite term - Layer Zero Completion.  Thank you David.

 

Freedom to Connect

I'll be in Washington DC on Monday & Tuesday next week to attend David Isenberg's Freedom to Connect 2006 conference, this year a joint venture of David's isen.com and PulverMedia of VON conference fame. There are a ton of interesting people on the schedule and, based on last year's conference, there will be plenty of interesting people in the audience as well.
From the conference home page:

The future of telecommunications starts now; there's a new U.S. Telecom Bill in the works, there's new networks in Europe, fast fiber in Asia, wireless across Africa and networks a-building in cities and villages around the world. Join the discussion.  Shape the debate. Assert your F2C:Freedom to Connect.

This is a US-centric conference, driven by frustrations with US policy and the fact that, while US broadband adoption has been fast (even more rapid than cell phone adoption), the US is still falling behind other nations in broadband connections, connection speeds and costs.

Of course it's public policy, so there's lots of politics and lots of muddle.  Fundamentally, there are two topics, which should be independent: 

• transport layer connectivity, commonly referred to as "broadband access"
  
• freedom to communicate electronically, a generalization of "freedom of speech"

Unfortunately, most US residents connect to the Internet using a service from a monopoly or duopoly provider, and recently, these providers have been making scary noises about content-based charging, so the two othewise independent topics become mixed and a muddle ensues.  At a very minimum, the telecom monopolist has an interest is being your only viable voice telephony service provider and the cable company in being your only TV-provider.  When these two compete for both telephony and TV, we move from two monopolists to a duopoly. But that's not much comfort for those of us seeking pure Internet connectivity.  15 Mbps?  100 Mbps?  1Gbps?  More, more, just bring it on!

Net Neutrality - No
Many people see the problem.  Quite a few, otherwise savvy, people think the answer lies in more regulation -- in Net Neutrality laws (here's one proposal) or regulations. Luckily Martin Geddes is on the program. He's a sharp cookie who should adequately kibosh the idea. And in the afternoon, there's a panel Muni Tsunami which will address one way around the problem.  But I worry that no one will actually discuss the root cause of our connectivity dilemma.

Layer Zero
Today the relevant monopoly and the only "natural monopoly" is at Layer Zero -- the physical right-of-way in front of our homes and businesses.  Everything else, copper pairs, coax, fiber, is a government granted monopoly that made sense in it's day, but no more. Yes, I've heard the argument that fiber is a natural monopoly, but that argument is based on the assumption that only services are allowed.  If fiber ownership (e.g. condominium fiber) is an option, or dark fiber in any form, the fiber-is-a-natural-monopoly argument falls to pieces.  Many people would still chose a service provider, but the ownership option would drive enormous competition. While he doesn't talk about Layer Zero competition, Bill St. Arnaud of the Canarie Project in Canada is the most articulate spokesman for condo fiber and customer-owned fiber.  Unfortunately, I don't see Bill on the agenda.  Perhaps I'll have a chance to make the point by careful questions during a Q&A.

Finding more spectrum for unlicensed use

I just stumbled on a great white paper, Reclaiming the Vast Wasteland, Why Unlicensed Use of the White Space in the TV Bands Will Not Cause Interference to DTV Viewers, by Michael J. Marcus, Paul Kolodzy and Andrew Lippman, published October 2005 by the New America Foundation.

I’ve long been an advocate of license-exempt access to wireless spectrum because of the enormous economic benefits we’ve realized from the few slivers of spectrum where license-exempt operation is currently permitted. Here rampant competition has emerged and usage has soared as WiFi, Bluetooth, pre-WiMAX and dozens of proprietary systems have taken off.  And, it’s in these bands that we see new modulation schemes, smart antennas, and mass-market products.

Unfortunately, only a few slivers of spectrum are allocated for license-exempt use, even though most licensed spectrum is unused. In particular, large swathes of TV spectrum are unused — even in a major city, most broadcast TV channels are empty.

Our waste of spectrum is not a technical problem. Wireless performance (in bps per Hz per sq. mile, for example) has been improving exponentially for over a century. But as the result of government regulation, wireless spectrum utilization is frozen on a band-by-band basis at the state-of-the-art as it stood when the band was defined 20, 40, or 60 years ago.  (In the US, broadcast TV was first authorized in 1941 and slightly updated for color broadcasting in 1953).

In the US in 2004, the FCC proposed allowing a new generation of wireless devices to make use of vacant TV channels. These are prime frequencies, as they more readily penetrate buildings, trees and other obstructions. Unfortunately, the National Association of Broadcasters and other broadcast TV industry lobbyists have strenuously objected to any use of any part of “their” bands and have raised a variety of objections.  Marcus, Kolodzy & Lippman thoroughly debunk each and every one of their points.

We have the potential to open up prime wireless spectrum for broadband access and unlimited other purposes.  It would be a pity if vested interests continued to block access to otherwise unused spectrum.