In a recent GigaOm post, Stacy Higginbotham suggests cable’s concern with white space devices is a response to the new broadband competition they would provide to cable.  Michael addressed NCTA’s ex parte filing earlier this week, but it’s important to understand what has happened in the longer history of the white spaces debate.

Cable’s concerns have been based solely on technical issues.  Cable has been very patient in this process, extending over several years.  We first raised our technical concerns at the FCC in the white spaces proceeding four years ago. At the same time we have reached out continuously to the white spaces proponents for constructive solutions.  In 2007, we submitted a detailed technical study which described our interference concerns.

The important thing to keep in mind here is that cable has no white spaces. While various proposals and ex parte advocacy filings have been submitted in this proceeding, none have addressed the implications of TV band devices operating on the same frequencies used by cable. None have focused on the potential disruption of customer viewing of cable programming.

This inattention has persevered despite detailed filings by NCTA demonstrating the high likelihood that unlicensed personal/portable TV band devices, as currently proposed, will interfere with cable service. The Commission’s own findings in lab tests a year ago confirmed the serious risks of “direct pickup” (DPU) interference to cable-ready DTV receivers.  Now, early reports of Commission field tests further demonstrate that the risk to cable consumers is very real.

A second problem is the high risk of interference to rural cable headend antenna reception.  Cable systems in rural communities often rely on tower-mounted, high gain directional antennas to receive broadcast signals.  Many of these headend sites are outside the station’s predicted Grade B contour.

NCTA has urged the Commission to take full account of the unique hazards to cable before it approves unlicensed transmitters on TV white spaces frequencies.

We think this is a straightforward problem that needs to be addressed.  We continue to support efforts to open up additional spectrum for the delivery of new wireless communications.  However, the customers we serve have every right to expect this to be fixed before that happens.

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.

You may recall last week’s discussion of network management, provoked by our FCC filing. Michael Willner also posted about this issue, which then garnered some interesting comments from the likes of George Ou and Robb Topolski.

It’s a good idea to take a look at the whole thing, because it illustrates an important point.  I hope we made the argument sufficiently in our post that some kind of network management is necessary to ensure a quality experience for our customers.  This online discussion illustrates that achieving this is a complex issue. Almost any decision requires you to balance pros and cons. It’s complicated and it’s not clear what the correct path is, which then probably requires a period of some experimentation.

Given all of that, why would you want to put a government agency in charge of deciding what particular method of management should be used?  Or worse, have it decide that no methods of management can be used at all?

The handwringing about broadband adoption in the US continues unabated with yet another group calling for either some sort of government intervention or some form of nationalization (though Vint Cerf now claims he was joking – mostly). In trying to clarify his comments, Cerf actually added more confusion.

“Maybe we should treat the Internet more like the road system, look for ways of creating incentives to make the Internet more accessible to everyone, and less likely to be abused by the private sector,” Cerf said. … “It’s not likely you’re going to want to have multiple roads owned by the private sector to get to your house. Generally speaking, that’s true of the power system — you don’t have multiple wires going to your house to carry power.”

It’s good that Cerf cleared this up. He doesn’t want nationalized Internet. He just wants one wire going to your house, no “multiple roads” run by the private sector and something that resembles the road system (which is run by government, right?)

As just one example of why making the Internet like roads is a bad idea, look at the Big Dig in Boston. It was completed five years late for almost five times its original $2.6 billion budget. Just after it opened, a huge chunk fell on a passing cars causing injury and a fatality. It is a perfect example of government inefficiency on large scale building projects. Not exactly a great model when compared to cable’s $130 billion investment in its network and the more than $200 billion the telephone companies are expected to invest in their upgrade.

While I’m still confused about how making the Internet like roads isn’t actually a call for nationalization (to me, it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…), fortunately, in the midst of the confusion comes a voice of reason.

The Pew Internet & American Life Project released its latest report on broadband adoption on Wednesday. Pew isn’t a group you can write off as Astroturf. They’ve done a lot of extraordinary research into how Americans are using the Internet. What did they find?

• The average price of broadband dropped 4% since the last survey (12/2005) to $34.50;
• Prices dropped despite the fact that 29% of respondents reported opting for a premium tier of broadband service – taking cable’s high-value offerings of faster speeds at a higher price;
• Across the board, broadband adoption grew 17% nationwide for the 12 months ending May 2008 – the strongest growth areas were among senior citizens, lower-middle income households and rural areas;
• The number of dial-up users who report disinterest in upgrading to broadband service remains roughly constant at 62% - even though the average price of dial-up actually increased 9% since the 12/05 survey;
• Of respondents who do not use the Internet, only 7% said that price was a deciding factor.

What this clearly demonstrates is what cable has been saying all along – while the goal of connecting every American is certainly a priority, and one we are working towards – the notion that there is a national crisis which requires immediate government intervention is simply overblown.

Contrary to assertions that the price of broadband in the US is prohibitively high, very few respondents in the Pew study agreed. This correlates nicely with the a Parks Associates Study last year that found very few people refused to get connected due to cost considerations. Adoption increased among Americans in households earning between $20-40k per year by 24% - the highest growth rate among any economic group.  Only among household earning less than $20k a year did adoption rates actually fall.  Given the state of the economy and the weakened dollar, this is not surprising. 

It does, however, highlight the need to specifically target the barriers to adoption that low-income families face – ranging from lack of computer ownership in the home to lower education attainment. In stark contrast to the OCED figures touted by groups like Internet for Everyone – figures about which there is considerable debate regarding methods and measurements – Pew finds that when you actually ask America what they’re paying for broadband you get a very reasonable-sounding number.

Further, the 17% growth rate in broadband adoption is astounding given the level of economic uncertainty gripping other sectors of the economy. This speaks to the steady march toward near-universal nationwide adoption. With more than 55% now connected, broadband Internet has passed the 50% barrier faster than any technology in history – faster than cell phones, radio, television, and computers, Will all Americans be online next year?  No, but we’re definitely getting there – and as we do, cable services are improving to keep pace with faster speeds and lower prices.

Last, but not least, note that 24% of dial-up users in rural America report that they would adopt broadband if it became available to them.  The big takeaway here is that the US, working with ISPs on policies such as the changes to the broadband loan program that were included in the Farm Bill, is doing exactly what it should be doing – focusing on the small percentage of Americans who are either unserved or underserved. There is clearly demand in rural America for broadband, and we ought to use the power of the government wisely to provide the right incentives for companies to connect the unconnected.

The cable industry continues to work with Connected Nation to identify areas that are not reached by cable so every effort can be made to focus government resources on those areas that need it most.

Let’s also not overlook voluntary efforts by the private sector. For more than a decade, cable systems through Cable in the Classroom have been offering complimentary broadband service to any school within the cable system’s broadband footprint. That’s an offer that’s been accepted by thousands of schools already, and it continues to stand today.

What we should not be doing, and the Pew study makes this clear, is pursuing heavy-handed regulation (or even worse, the radical nationalization ideas proposed by Vint Cerf and others).

NCTA President & CEO Kyle McSlarrow will participate in a National Press Club “Newsmaker” Media Briefing today at noon (ET).

In his address, entitled “Cable’s Broadband Platform: Innovation for the Consumer,” he is expected to challenge the notion that there is a rivalry between innovation taking place at the edge of or in the network. In contrast, he will discuss the notion of an interactive “Internet ecosystem.” He will also discuss new developments in tru2way.

His speech will be webcast through this link [Archive available at this link for 6 months].

UPDATE: It’s also being streamed at C-SPAN’s site. The text of the speech has been posted at NCTA’s website.

The cable industry has consistently demonstrated its commitment to policies that ensure all Americans have access to affordable broadband. This includes:

• Proposals to create a fund tailored to expanding broadband into unserved areas.
• The Broadband Data Improvement Act which would improve federal data collection regarding where broadband services have been deployed in the United States to achieve the goal of ubiquitous broadband availability for all Americans.
• Tax credits or other tax incentives to providers that build out in rural areas that are unserved by an existing broadband provider.
• Reform of the RUS broadband loan program so that funding is targeted specifically to unserved areas.
• Expansion of the FCC’s Lifeline and Link-Up Programs to help ensure that broadband access is extended to low-income households.
• Public-private partnerships to provide broadband in unserved areas.

We recognize that the government can play an important role in making certain that the economic and social benefits of broadband connectivity are extended to all areas of this country. While broadband deployment to every community in America merits the full attention of policymakers, legislation calling for “network neutrality” or government intervention into the operation of networks would undermine the goals of broadband deployment and adoption.

The government’s consistent light regulatory touch since the introduction of broadband has worked. Only that continued regulatory freedom is likely to spur the investment and innovation that consumers have come to expect.

The cable industry is on the verge of making the leap — from “broadband” to “wideband” — with a technology which can enable dramatically higher download and upload speeds. Several weeks ago, for example, Comcast launched a “wideband” service in Minneapolis-St. Paul that offers speeds of 50 Megabits per second. Comcast expects to have wideband available to 20% of its systems by year-end 2008 and to all homes passed by mid 2010.

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.

(more…)