|
White spaces,
white noise!
The issue of using the underutilized spaces
that exist in the broadcast spectrum has aroused much hostility
from the US National Association of Broadcasters, coached
like its objections to low-power FM in terms of concern about
interference but probably more to do with perceived threats
that could arise from expanding the reach of wireless broadband
that could cut into the audiences for both radio and TV over-the-air
broadcasts.
It makes appropriate noises about supporting innovative broadband
applications but its record is one of a very narrow defence
of what it perceives as the interests of its members (fair
enough) without due regard to the wider public interest (permissible
but probably not very wise) or the facts about technological
developments' effects ( unacceptable).
NAB's arguments - the
same as its LPFM objections.
The arguments put by the NAB boil down to
the technology could interfere with existing broadcasts and
so far it hasn't been shown to work (in the same way that
its objections to low-power FM were, overtly at least, primarily
the issue of potential interference despite safeguards that
were being proposed - studies indicated that the NAB was screaming
wolf at times when there wasn't a mammal in sight and massively
overplaying the likelihood of interference but just in case
interference issues arose the low-power station could be taken
off the air if it was shown to be interfering with a licensed
commercial station.)..
We agree with NAB to a very limited degree:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would be failing
in its duty were it to permit the sale of such devices without
proper regulation to ensure that there was no significant effect
on signals - primarily DTV signals in this case but some mobile
communications companies have also been opposing the plans,
again it would seem on the basis of potential damage to their
business.
There is no evidence that this is the case. The evidence is
that the Commission in all case is, if anything, too cautious
about permitting development when it could but might well not
affect vested interests.
In this case proposals are not to just allow an unregulated
use of white-space devices but to allow development only within
very narrow limits - restricting power and barring the use of
some channels - but keep the door open should technological
development mean that wider use can be made of white space by
more advanced equipment to ease the restrictions.
The benefits.
From the point of view of the public this should mean
the potential to eventually create high-speed wireless
Internet networks that could enable easy reception of
the Internet, including audio streams, in many more
places - increase listener choice in other words rather
than leaving them with access when on the move only
to such choice by paying much more to existing mobile
communications companies on such devices as cell-phones
than a competitive use of white-space would allow.
In our view that would be to the advantage of the wider
public and it would be foolish to stifle such potential
because a lobbying group with few scruples concerning
accuracy has a lot of clout and can attract signatures
of support from self-serving politicians and organizations
that will either directly benefit from restricting services
or want technological certainties in an uncertain world.
.
Go ahead but regulate.
We can think of
no strong arguments to prevent development in
this area and think that with proper regulation
there should be no reason to fear problems for
incumbent spectrum holders in terms of anything
but competition and choice - both of which we
favour.
We can only hope that the incoming administration,
despite lobbying that the NAB will doubtless
commence, will look at the facts and allow development
and use of white spaces to go ahead but institute
proper trials and safeguards along the road.
If the facts show problems are occurring that
outweigh the benefits of developments, then
those proposing the developments should have
to take a step back and improve their equipment:
If they show no problems, objections from the
NAB and others should be overridden and development
given the go-ahead. The criteria should be the
maximum benefit to communities and people as
a whole, not to narrow business interests.
.
What you think? Please
E-mail
your comments.
RNW
note: Some site technical problem in April 2008 meant we lost April
and May 2008 comments and subsequent pressures meant we were unable
to reconstitute them: We are now hoping to keep up to date with
future comments and retrace our files to post the comments from
April to Sept 2008 inclusive
 March
2008 comment
|
