White Spaces Battle Heats Up as Broadcast Networks Seek ‘Time Out’

Over at DrewClark.com, earlier today I reported today that television networks – which in recent years have had a strained relationship with local broadcasters on a variety of fronts – joined with the National Association of Broadcasters in calling for a time out on the politically simmering issue of “white spaces.” Here’s the start of the story, and you can read the full post at DrewClark.com

WASHINGTON, October 23 – The top executives of the four major broadcast networks on Thursday urged the head of the Federal Communications Commission to delay a vote on a politically simmering issue that pits broadcasters against Google and high-tech executives.

In the letter, the CEOs of CBS Corp., NBC Universal and Walt Disney, and the chief operating officer of News Corp., urge that the FCC exercise caution before taking irreparable action with regard to the vacant television channels known as “white spaces.”

Google and the other technology executives, including Microsoft, Motorola, Philips and others, want the FCC to authorize electronic devices that capable of transmitting internet signals over vacant television bands.

The network executives – CBS’s Leslie Moonves, Disney’s Robert Iger, NBC’s Jeffrey Zucker and Peter Chernin of News Corp. – want a time out.

They join their local broadcasting colleagues, as well as manufacturers and users of wireless microphones, like the National Football League and Boadway theater owners, who have been actively lobbying the issue.

[...]

Read the rest of the story at my blog, DrewClark.com – The Politics of Telecom, Media and Technology

October 23, 2008 | Comments |

  • (Drew, look: If you want to post an article to this blog, post the whole damn thing, not a tease to drive traffic to your own blog. We all do self-promotion, but this is over the line.)

    The White Spaces debate is a load of crap, as there are plenty of good reasons for non-broadcasters to oppose the wasteful and short-sighted plan that the WS Coalition has floated. When allocating spectrum, the regulator needs to consider not just how it's going to be used for the next 18 months, but how well the deployment plan is going to adapt to new technologies. The tragedy of unlicensed Wi-Fi, for example, is the way legacy devices cannibalize the potential of newer and more efficient ones. We don't want this to happen in the White Spaces, but if the Coalition gets its way the first generation of devices are going to be a drag on all future innovations. There needs to be a way to retire legacy devices after a reasonable period of time, and the best way to do that is with some form of licensing.

    Kevin Martin seems dedicated at doing as much damage as he possibly can to the American IT industry before leaving office.
  • sjschultze
    I'm cross-posting my comment, which was also posted on Drew's blog:

    Hazlett's "alternative" is nothing new, it's simply the most extreme propertization approach... a case of applying the Coasian principles in a fundamentalist way. He has been arguing for this type of approach for all spectrum for quite some time:

    http://mason.gmu.edu/~thazlett/pubs/The%20Wirel...

    It is also a bit inaccurate to characterize his proposal as a "third way". It would be more accurate to explain that there is a long-running debate between property and commons approaches, and his position represents one pole. There are indeed third ways in between these two extremes, and the currently proposed white spaces rules exist in this space (they do not create an absolute commons by any means). In any event, the NAB position is an outlier in this debate because nobody agrees with that position other than NAB (and, apparently, the networks).

    On a practical level, there are many unique hurdles to selling access to the white spaces which you do not mention. This is one reason unlicensed was so strongly considered in the first place. The other reason is that we have seen the tremendous success of economic models based on unlicensed use. Despite this fact, political/industry forces have prevented a more balanced approach between property and commons.

    I recommend the 2002 Spectrum Policy Task Force report for more balanced "third way" context, as well as the wealth of scholarship on the virtues of unlicensed spectrum.

    http://www.fcc.gov/sptf/reports.html
blog comments powered by Disqus

gauggggggggauuuu11 yehhhaaahhhuuuuuu11