Posted on 01/13/2018 7:01:07 AM PST by Kaslin
President Trump signed two Executive Orders on January 8 instructing the Interior Department to streamline the location of broadband infrastructure for the rural U.S. on federal properties. Now, if the FCC would only follow in that same spirit.
The FCC has authority over licenses for electromagnetic spectrum for communication over the airwaves. That includes TV and radio broadcast stations; desktop computers, laptops or tablets communicating over the internet through Wi-Fi; cellphones communicating through satellites; military communications by various means; and medical devices monitoring patients for doctors and hospitals.
Under the Radio Act of 1912, the FCC is authorized to license spectrum bandwidth in the “public interest, convenience, and necessity.” With so many big money interests fighting over government managed limited spectrum airwaves over the past century, some inefficiencies have inevitably resulted, leaving some usable airwave frequencies underutilized. (That would never have resulted if the spectrum were allocated as property rights in a decentralized market, rather than as central planning licenses from a central government bureaucracy).
The underutilized spectrum channels are known as white spaces. Microsoft is promoting the Airband Initiative, which would be entirely private-sector financed to provide universal broadband to everyone through such currently unused “white spaces,” including the 23.4 million Americans in rural areas that do not have any broadband access now.
Using just three currently unused white space channels around the 600 megahertz bandwidth, the Airband Initiative can provide the lowest cost broadband to rural areas through what is called “Super Wi-Fi,” because it can penetrate through wood, forests and walls like TV broadcasts. This is a not-for-profit venture for Microsoft. Rather, Microsoft will contribute a few dozen of its patents for “White Space” broadband technology to any participating company free of any royalties.
Microsoft has proved this technology works by using it to provide broadband to over 185,000 people in 20 countries around the world. The White Spaces would not be licensed to any company exclusively, but would be available for use by everyone for broadband, just like Wi-Fi is today. Since these White Spaces are devoted to “public use” today, the government would not lose any revenue in reserving them for use by the Airband Initiative.
Congress has shown support for the Initiative through a bipartisan letter to the FCC circulated by Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-ND), signed by over 40 House members, including House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-NC), House Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Rep. Suzan DelBene (R-CA), and Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT).
The Initiative is opposed by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) out of fear it would not leave enough room for expansion by Low-Power Television rural broadcasters. But broadcasters already control 92% of the broadcast spectrum, accounting for 210 MHz out of 228 MHz in TV bandwidth. White Spaces account for just 18 MHz of the spectrum.
That would mean 35 nationwide channels reserved for broadcasters, guaranteeing channels for every full power broadcaster and every lesser power Class A station. Only three channels would be reserved for universal broadband, assuring there would be one channel at least in every locality usable for Wi-Fi services providing personal communication by voice, video, text, and streaming media which can be used for news, entertainment, learning, two-way interactive medicine, and agricultural sensors.
Using these limited White Spaces for these broadband purposes would not interfere with any current broadcasters or any other licensed use of the electromagnetic spectrum. It would even leave room on the spectrum for low power television broadcasters to grow, though Wi-Fi broadband is recognized as more valuable in currently unserved rural areas than more low power television stations.
Can you spell “win-win?” No wonder this universal broadband initiative has bipartisan support. Now President Trump’s FCC needs to follow the spirit of his Executive Orders, and cooperate with the necessary spectrum licensing.
How you gonna wire up Bumf—k, Egypt? Too spread out. Lack of high speed internet is bringing folks closer to the grid. If it’s doable real estate will do quite well for those that need a country home.
Low power broadcast TV doesn’t need much bandwidth as the NAB well knows. The same handful of channels can be reused in every market because they are limited n range. FCC should regulate in the public interest, convenience, and necessity, as their mission used to state.
If we can achieve universal broadband coverage, we don’t need broadcasters any more. This applies to all broadcasters, not just the rural relations.
If it cost $19.99 a month, or less, I am in.
This FCC will do what Verizon tells them to do, when Verizon tells them to, and they’re not going to let the public interest or any damn President of the United States tell them otherwise.
Me still pissed about the constant changing of low power frequencies for wireless mikes.
Whether you are a DJ or a school with an auditorium or even a mobile videographer there is nothing wrong with 10 or 20 year old technology. Other than the yanked the frequencies away.
I’ll be damned if I will buy new gear every 8 years due to nothing more than govt freq shifting.
Everything I own (which is more than a dozen varying units) are now on frequencies illegal for me to use. Nothing wrong with the gear, just big govt.
I don’t understand the focus on this. Rural areas already have options for high-speed internet.
What are they? Satellite internet? I don’t think so.
Hughes is satellite. My brother uses it for homeschooling his kids out in the boondocks of western NY on the family homestead. It’s kick-ass fast.
Lots of rural areas including mine have wireless connections that are quite fast. Wireless Internet providers are putting in more towers to provide service.
Not every single area can receive a good signal because of the terrain, but that is changing with the addition of new towers being built.
Yes and it is expensive and they throttle back your service when you exceed their data parameters. Perhaps competition would help the rural markets.
I don’t know. Obviously you are an expert and I’m not.
It worries me that once the government provides internet for everyone, then they could mandate all to participate. Too much intrusion.
Entirely private financed alternatives great, but plans that slap a tax on current broadband users to subsidize rural users no.
I live 35 miles f4om Houston, in a rural area. My options are cell coverage, which is spotty at best, or satellite, which is limited and expensive. No DSL, no cable, no fiber, and no BPL. Not much in the way of options.
Maybe I’m the only one thing this way but is this really a function of federal government?
Maybe so, but let’s allow the market to decide, eh? Over-the-air broadcasting has some advantages over broadband IP “broadcasting”, just as gasoline engines have advantages over electric vehicles, to use and example that gets FReepers all riled up.
Freedom of choice and free enterprise unencumbered by someone in Washington DC deciding which approaches are winners and which are losers are universal concepts.
WISPs are growing even into urban areas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Internet_service_provider
My county of about 900 square miles has 100% wireless internet coverage using a small CPE antenna as shown in the photos at this link. Cost is comparable to cable, cheaper than satellite. This technology is NOT wi-fi. A good approach is to light up fiber to an area and then use wireless to distribute the internet signal across “the last mile”.
take a look at http://www.skynetwisp.com/residential.html
This year, I had to file my business taxes on line. no paper, no mail, no checks. I paid with a credit card and it cost $.51.
So with this kind of growth those with no internet ability will be in trouble.
To assure compatibility everywhere across the country, the federal government can provide the universal service just as it did with telephone and electric service.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.