Your comments appreciated: Beyond White Spaces

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: dewayne () warpspeed com (Dewayne Hendricks)
Date: October 23, 2008 8:25:03 AM EDT
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <xyzzy () warpspeed com>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Your comments appreciated: Beyond White Spaces

[Note:  This item comes from friend David Isenberg.  DLH]

From: "David S. Isenberg (isen)" <isen () isen com>
Date: October 23, 2008 1:09:37 AM PDT
To: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
Subject: Your comments appreciated: Beyond White Spaces

Beyond White Spaces
Thursday, October 23, 2008
<http://isen.com/blog/2008/10/beyond-white-spaces.html>

Back in 1999 I wrote a column that envisioned the uses of digital  
wireless in the home. I compared two nascent, much-touted wireless  
protocols, Bluetooth and HomeRF. I completely, totally, slippery-dash  
missed Wi-Fi. There had been a public 802.11 spec since 1997. The  
first 802.11b devices, which made Wi-Fi popular, burst onto the scene  
in early 2000, just a few short months after my clueless insights.  
Today HomeRF is forgotten, Bluetooth is for ugly ear jewelry and Wi-Fi  
rulz.

Broadband over Power Line (BPL), once touted as The Third Pipe, is  
another dud. DSL Reports just declared 2008 The Year BPL Died, citing  
tech problems, performance problems and market problems. BPL's flaws  
have been obvious for years to those whose salary doesn't depend on  
its success. Rahul Tongia's 2004 paper, Can Broadband Over Powerline  
Carrier Compete? should have been the last nail in its coffin. I  
blogged BPL-RIP in 2005, saying, "BPL is so crippled there's no  
'disruptive' in it." The mistake persisted for years longer than it  
should have, supporting the myth that multi-modal competition is a  
substitute for national policy. Today all who look see that fiber rulz.

There's so many things a new technology needs to get right if it is to  
succeed. First it needs to be significantly better than what's out  
there already. It needs to be cheaper out of the gate. It needs to  
open up new markets and prove itself useful. It needs to achieve  
economies of scope and scale. It needs economics that won't strangle  
it in its crib.

White spaces, the FCC proceeding about using digital TV spectrum  
that's only lit in cities far away, strikes me as YARV, yet another  
risky venture. My friends at Google and the New America Foundation  
held a meeting on white spaces the other day. The title of the  
meeting, "Pervasive Connectivity," seems an over-reach without a  
systems approach that includes pervasive fiber and already-deployed  
wireless protocols, such as Wi-Fi and LTE. Who's going to build  
devices in such scale that they'll out price-performance Wi-Fi? Who's  
going to offer service that'll out-pervade the cellular network? And  
what about that one critical factor that every wireless network must  
consider, backhaul?

The white space idea is fraught with unsolved issues. In its first  
incarnation, its radios will only broadcast at 40 milliwatts, which  
raises doubts about any advantage it might have over Wi-Fi.  
(Meanwhile, Wi-Fi itself keeps improving.) One wireless data expert I  
know suspects that propagation characteristics around 300-400 MHz  
could cause major problems. Another expert I know, considering all the  
issues, suggests that white space may find its niche in under-served,  
e.g., rural, areas. Neither was heard at the "Pervasive Connectivity"  
meeting. Such views, no matter how correct, are problematic when  
specific policy change is the over-arching goal.

The FCC may or may not consider white space in its meeting on November  
4, which conveniently falls on election day. Hey, the FCC was all for  
BPL. Indeed, the FCC absolutely should allow white space experiment to  
proceed; sins of commission, pun intended, are better than sins of  
omission, especially when they allow honest experimentation.

Google's strategy is an incremental, multi-frontal approach. That's  
OK, we need to make progress where we can. Even if the progress is  
limited to, "yet another experiment." But, in addition, there should  
be another effort, a big, synoptic plan, that rises above specific  
technologies and specific policy agendas, that uses all of the  
expertise available, to craft a comprehensive vision worthy of the  
moniker "Pervasive Connectivity."

Suppose in the next few months we get the opportunity to propose a  
real plan for Pervasive Connectivity for our nation, could we rise to  
the occasion? Or would we remain conditioned to the mindset of the  
last eight years, when small increments counted as great victories.  
Naomi Klein cites Milton Friedman's idea that in a nodal moment, the  
ideas implemented are the ideas lying around. Rick Perlstein, in an  
essay called, A Liberal Shock Doctrine, points out that even  
progressive progress occurs in spurts, at opportune times. We  
shouldn't limit our vision to one specific technology or one  
tactically available sliver of spectrum. Now is the time to have a  
comprehensive plan "lying around" for the network we really want.
RSS Feed: <http://www.warpspeed.com/wordpress>




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com