It’s time to choose sides in this fight for frequencies.
I’m no Al Gore, but the “white space” controversy could be shaping up to become the global-warming issue of the RF universe. Back in March, we discussed the likely chaos that could ensue with the switchover to digital broadcasting scheduled to take place in early 2009. The move will open key parts of the RF spectrum to a variety of unregulated applications, from cell phones to PDAs, which will compete for access with existing professional wireless users.
Consumer electronics manufacturers and service providers with enormous political clout via trade groups like the CEA are eyeing these not-so-wide-open spaces. But another pair of giants now wants in on the act, and the names are about as big as they get. Google and Microsoft, rivals in many other aspects of Internet business, are combining to petition the Federal Communications Commission to make the “unused” white space available for wireless Internet access. Dell, HP, Intel and other computer-oriented corporations are joining the two technology behemoths in the effort.
The motives of the consumer electronics bloc, which wants to see the white spaces licensed and allocated and thus made more controllable through political lobbying, are pretty clear. Those of the new techno-alliance are less so, made still more opaque by Microsoft’s submission for testing by the FCC earlier this year of a mysterious device — the quintessential black box — that purports to reliably prevent bleed within the white-space spectrum. According to NPR’s “Marketwatch” program, Microsoft’s sparse specification of the device in its filing describes it as “a wireless device that utilizes OFDM, a technology that can be used to route digital TV and voice calls among devices,” versions of which have been tested and deployed for mobile phone use.
The Plot Thickens
This brings up the other large corporate delegation opposing the Microsoft-Google alliance: cellular phone service providers. If the white spaces remain unregulated, companies like Sprint, Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile could use them for WiFi access to the Internet that can bypass existing commercially controlled and owned access.
Also opposing Microsoft, et al., is the Association for Maximum Service Television (www.mstv.org), which proclaims itself a “liaison between the broadcast industry and the consumer electronics, professional video and other technology industries,” but whose board is made up almost entirely of broadcasters, who are finding their advertisers migrating to the Internet already and who don’t want the white-space cushion between channels challenged. As soon as Microsoft presented the FCC with its new technology, the MSTV group staged a protest saying that the proposal to open up all that unused air didn’t go far enough to protect digital television users from bleeding signals. (Even at the executive level, those broadcasters may be dimly aware of how an unregulated RF environment could delay content production and add to below-the-line costs.)
Given the FCC’s highly politicized nature in the Bush administration, and that administration’s own inclination to side with corporate interests, the fight over what is to become of the white spaces is not nearly over, and billions of lobbying dollars will be spent before it is. Thus, the outcome for RF users is also unclear. Consequently, even while pro audio manufacturers are continuing to present their findings to Congress and the FCC, it makes sense to start thinking about taking sides here. One of the mega-groups is going to come out on top; better to be on the winning side than the whining one.
End Game
So what are the likely outcome scenarios? The good news is that this is not an open-ended proposition, like introducing a new technology format. The outcome is not waiting on some uncertain point in the future when the unseen hand of the market makes its appearance; rather, this has a fixed decision point, sometime before the switch on digital broadcasting gets flipped around February 2009. The argument for keeping white spaces unregulated — “ubiquitous spectrum” is the technical term — argues for the Microsoft/Google contingent. While we shouldn’t look anytime soon for a professional wireless microphone system from the people who brought you Windows, keep in mind the enormous beachhead that computer-oriented companies have taken in pro audio. The first thing you see upon entering an AES Show or NAMM pro audio hall is the enormous Apple booth. That footprint is only going to get bigger and more comprehensive. Would making the case to Silicon Valley for wireless microphone allocation within a ubiquitous spectrum perhaps produce more results than making the case to a politician in an even-numbered year? If, as the FCC suggests, Microsoft’s black-box technology does indeed keep discrete the adjacent bands within the white space, it could act as the technology agent to argue for reserving a portion of the space for the live-event entertainment industry.
On the other hand, pro audio is accustomed to coloring within the lines (drummers excepted). Those seeking to regulate the white spaces are perhaps closer cousins to pro audio than Internet businesses. The telcos and CE manufacturers are hardware-oriented cultures, something they have in common with pro audio manufacturers, plug-ins notwithstanding. Some of this constituency also has deeply vested interests in the live-event economy, such as Verizon, which sponsors numerous institutional and educational concert series.
I’m not ready to hazard a guess as to which way this coin is going to land. Both sides are spending big bucks on their lobbying efforts, which indicates just how important this up-for-grabs spectrum actually is. But what I am saying is, that everyone with a dog in this fight should seek allies wherever they can get them. Pro audio is a tiny niche in the grand scheme of media technology, but we have Bon Jovi’s monitor mix and they don’t. Let’s see who wants to dance.
Contact Dan at ddaley@fohonline.com.
