NCTA last week filed an ex parte letter with the FCC regarding the so called “white space” devices and interference with cable systems. While much of the media coverage of these devices has focused on interference with broadcast signals, an often overlooked aspect is the negative impact they can have on cable systems.

The good news, however, is we believe there are steps that can be taken by device manufacturers and the FCC to mitigate those concerns and bring these devices to market. The use of white spaces holds promise for new wireless services. And while we support use of this innovative technology, the FCC must first ensure that no harm is done to millions of cable customers.

White space devices, for those unfamiliar, identify and use unused TV channels for transmission of data. They identify the TV channels in use in a given area, and use the unused TV channels within that area for data transfer.

Broadcasters and makers of wireless devices such as microphones are concerned that the devices may not properly identify used TV channels and cause interference with everything from over the air television reception to concert hall sound systems. Testing currently underway gives a certain amount of legitimacy to this fear. Some devices improperly identified every frequency as being in operation or improperly identified frequencies in use as not in use.

Beyond these issues, however, cable subscribers have unique interference issues that can arise from white space devices, and they have gone largely unreported.

For instance:

• Cable television systems have no ‘white spaces.’ Cable systems use all of the channels in the broadcast television band for the delivery of programming and other services to their customers. As consumers with TVs connected directly to cable (without a set-top) tune up and down the dial, they may experience significant interference as they tune past channels utilized by white space devices.
• The proposed unlicensed TV band devices pose a significant threat to cable’s reception of distant over-the-air television programming at headends. If white space devices operate between a distant broadcast facility and a cable head-end, the device may not recognize the distant signal, and prevent the cable headend from receiving the signal at all.

In many cases, the most serious concerns about white space devices as they impact cable have more to do with the power of the devices. Higher power “fixed” white space antennas could impact consumers with cable ready TVs as far away as three miles from the antenna.

The use of white spaces is just one of the innovative solutions that cable and other industries are exploring to provide consumers more access to content when and where they want. These efforts are exciting but we should ensure that any new technology shouldn’t interfere with the right of consumers to enjoy the services to which they already subscribe.

To help resolve some of these technical challenges, we have proposed some steps that will mitigate the interference from this new technology. These solutions include:

1. Restrict the operation of portable devices to a maximum of 10 mW and prohibit transmissions in the VHF channels given the high probability of direct pickup interference to TV receivers.
2. Prohibit operations, at a minimum, on channels 2- 4.
3. Restrict the operation of fixed devices to at least 400 feet from the external walls of residential buildings.
4. Prohibit operation of fixed devices in VHF channels.
5. Require spectrum coordination before operation of portable devices on channels adjacent to those being received at headends.
   1. Of the suggested methods by which fixed and portable devices might automatically determine channel availability, it appears that auto-location (GPS or equivalent), combined with regular access to a reliable database containing geographically-indexed lists of available channels, has the potential to provide the flexibility and reliability required to protect headend reception.

By incorporating these recommendations on the operation of white space devices, we believe the benefits of the technology can be balanced against the probable impact it will have on millions of cable television customers.

There’s a very amusing picture painted of NCTA on Ars Technica, literally Shakespearean in nature.

“Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more,” cried William Shakespeare’s Henry V in the play so titled. “Or close the wall up with our English dead!” Perhaps in said spirit did the National Cable and Television [sic] Association (NCTA) veep Michael Schooler and Insight CEO Michael Willner march up to the eighth floor of the Federal Communications Commission on the ninth of July to plead the cause of ISP “network management”…

Taken in conjunction with yesterday’s post on DSL Reports, it sounds like we painted a portrait of Biblical apocalypse. NCTA’s own Michael Schooler and Insight’s Michael Willner supposedly warned of “the impending destruction of the Internet by P2P users.” Or else we said “that the Internet would all but collapse.”

Wow! That sure sounds scary. But since neither Karl Bode nor Matthew Lasar was actually at that meeting, they instead apparently based their accounts on a letter we filed. If you read it for yourself, you find that four points were made.

• Network management is necessary to prevent serious congestion.
• Service for customers would be degraded without such management.
• Network upgrades alone won’t solve problem.
• The government should not pre-determine the tools and technology to be used for network management.

So I ask: Which of these four points are in contention? The DSL Reports post even says “Most techs don’t oppose reasonable network management (booting extreme gluttons, some QOS and prioritization)…” So, we can start by agreeing that reasonable network management is a good thing. Without some kind of management, problems will arise.

Let’s look at service degradation. Was complete congestion claimed? The phrase used is “can cause substantial (and sometimes complete) congestion of the system’s upload capacity.” Let’s emphasize three key words: can, sometimes and upload. This is critical, because peer-to-peer applications are the focus of attention.

This goes to the point about simply upgrading a network. A peer-to-peer application looks for users with the best upload connection. Building a bigger pipe does not eliminate the necessity of network management.

Finally, is the federal government really the best body to judge what network management tools are appropriate? I’m not convinced it is. Nor am I convinced that the answer is a big dumb pipe that treats all bits equally, whether it’s a phone call, streaming video, a P2P download, an e-mail, or a Web page request. And anybody who actually understands how networks work wouldn’t either.

Both of these posts claim that we are crying “Armageddon!” for nefarious reasons. But should nothing be done at all? We want to give our customers the best Internet experience possible, now and in the future, and we need network management to accomplish that goal.

Kyle posted a few weeks ago about his interview with Robert Scoble of FastCompany.tv. Scoble’s video of the interview is online now and embedded below.

Enjoy!

On Friday morning, Tom Tauke took to Verizon’s blog to post thoughts on the rumored FCC decision reversing the bureau’s suggested dismissal of cable’s complaint about the telco’s “retention marketing”.  NCTA President Kyle McSlarrow drafted a response here and on Verizon’s blog.  The back and forth went on late into the night with Kyle posting his final word after 8pm.

Due to the relatively unprecedented nature of this direct, and public, debate between major industry players, a lot of people took notice.

Sidecut Reports called it a tussle that only telecom policy wonks could love.

Maybe it’s a tussle that only telecom policy wonks could love, but if you are at all involved in the regulatory sphere you’ve just got to love that the battle of the corporate titans has now moved, Web 2.0 style, into the blogosphere, with Verizon and the Cable companies now using blogs to take pokes at each other…  If you are really interested in the argument, follow the links and join the conversation. We are going to spend the rest of the day worrying whether or not direct competitor blogging means that pundits are out of a job — again!

From the Technology Liberation Front:

Verizon’s Tom Tauke and NCTA’s Kyle McSlarrow take to fisticuffs in their comments (well worth reading and remarkably… candid) on the Verizon Policy Blog after Tom asked “Will Cable and FCC Thwart Consumer Choice?”

Dave Zatz at Zatz Not Funny writes:

In the talking typing heads policy battle currently raging across the blogosphere, I hereby declare the NCTA as winner. I actually have very little interest or knowledge of the topic at hand, however there can be only one… and Verizon’s lobbyist is still ending sentences with two spaces, while Cable’s lobbyist linked his rival’s blog. (Bonus 1/2 point to Cable for using WordPress, though they haven’t upgraded to 2.5.* yet.)

Perhaps the most salient point, and possibly the briefest, was made by Insight Communications CEO (and NCTA Executive Committee Member) Michael Willner (a blogger himself) after Tom and Kyle suggested taking the debate offline.

NO! Resist going back to the old Washington ways!! Don’t settle this in a beltway gin mill. This is the 21st Century and we all want a front row seat!!

We wouldn’t consider it.  When Kyle launched this blog, he spelled out its purpose clearly.

But we didn’t start this blog just to tell you all that. We launched this blog to talk about telecom policy. Today’s vibrant public policy discussions are driven by conversation and debate taking place online, so we hope this blog will contribute to that dialogue. We’ll be talking about proposed legislation and regulation at the federal, state, and local level. We’ll voice our support for changes that would lead to a better, more competitive technology landscape. When we think legislation is unnecessary or detrimental, we’ll talk about that, too. And, while we will certainly express our views, our goal is to have a dialogue… So, we’ll… invite people with whom we may not agree to engage in debates across their blogs and ours. We’re looking to cross post ongoing exchanges in an effort to provide you with the kind of information that helps you decide for yourself.

This was obviously an example of that, but this is only one salvo in a much broader and ongoing discussion and debate over telecom issues.  Keep your eyes peeled, there’s more to come.

(On two sidenotes, you can find NCTA’s statement on the FCC Decision here.  A sidenote to Dave Zatz: We’re big fans of WordPress, but haven’t upgraded due to a dependency on one plug-in that hasn’t yet upgraded.  Hopefully we’ll find a 2.5 compatible plug-in soon.  I’m working on it.)

The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will hold a hearing tomorrow, May 6, at 9:30 a.m to cover “H.R. 5353, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008.” Witnesses will discuss the proposed legislation, which would direct the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to assess competition, consumer protection, and consumer choice issues relating to broadband Internet access services, including network neutrality. The bill was introduced by Reps. Edward Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, and Chip Pickering (R-MS).

NCTA’s Kyle McSlarrow will testify as will Mitch Bainwol of RIAA, Walter McCormick of US Telecom, and several others. Look for Kyle to make many of the same points he made in testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee on April 22, and in his post on network management here.

The efforts of broadband network providers to build larger and faster networks have helped ensure the success of countless numbers of new Internet businesses and applications. Despite concerns about alleged limited access to broadband, use of Internet video on demand has grown at the most dramatic rate. In February 2008, nearly 135 million U.S. Internet users spent an average of 204 minutes viewing 10.1 billion online videos. YouTube represented 34% of those online videos, or nearly 3.5 billion.

For years, net neutrality proponents have argued that without government intervention, broadband providers would stifle competing services and content providers; Internet development and usage would stagnate; and consumers would be unable to use their broadband connections to download video or access other emerging applications. In fact, cable’s investment in broadband has driven innovation and investment in new content and applications at the edge — the exact opposite of what was predicted by advocates of net regulation. …

Far from being “neutral,” a network that is not managed simply allows those who want to demand all the bandwidth for themselves to do so unchecked. …

Under the guise of preventing discrimination, “net neutrality” proponents would have the government determine which network management techniques are permissible. Putting every network management strategy up for debate before regulators would severely hamper the ability of network providers to ensure high-quality and reliable Internet access for their subscribers. Depriving network operators of certain bandwidth management tools only makes the network less efficient for everyone. Adept network optimization techniques are fundamental to creating and preserving the stable “ecosystem” for online service providers that ensures an optimal customer experience.

Misplaced concerns over legitimate and reasonable network management practices do not justify the enactment of open-ended regulation of the Internet, particularly where the costs of such regulation are foreseeable and substantial. Given the growth of broadband competition and the breathtaking pace of technological change, government intervention is unwarranted. As the Federal Trade Commission has warned, regulation of Internet access at this stage of market development could have “potentially adverse and unintended effects,” including reduced product and service innovation.

Congress should resist calls to interfere with broadband providers’ freedom to manage their respective networks in order to satisfy the evolving needs of American consumers. The disaster scenarios voiced by network neutrality proponents for many years have never happened. In fact, the opposite has happened — the Internet is booming without regulation. There is quite simply no problem requiring a government solution.