Testimony before City Council on white spaces
Good morning. My name is Joshua Breitbart. I am the Policy Director of People's Production House. People's Production House provides young people, immigrants, and low-wage workers with a comprehensive education for the information age, combining media production, media literacy and media policy. We work in public schools and with community organizations in all five boroughs.
The certification of low-power white space devices (WSDs) is the single greatest step we could take towards closing the digital divide in this country and it will not cost the taxpayers a dime. In fact, it will save us money and it will stimulate our economy, locally and nationally. It is distressing to me and all of my organization's members that you would oppose this measure, as the draft resolution suggests. The current draft resolution does not even mention the digital divide.
This resolution, as currently drafted to discourage certification, would be harmful to the work of People's Production House and to our city. I say this as someone who has been very supportive of this committee in the past. You have done so much to bridge the digital divide, use technology to improve government, strengthen New Yorkers’ experience of technology, and boost our local economy, which is increasingly reliant on technology and telecommunications. This draft resolution runs counter to all of those goals.
It is sad to see an otherwise forward-thinking group of legislators propose a resolution so filled with fear and confusion. But why should I be surprised? The only thing the major broadcasters and wireless microphone companies have on their side is fear. Engineering, the law, the economic health of our city, and the moral imperative of closing the digital divide are all on our side, in support of device-certified access to the white spaces.
The proposed resolution is simply bad policy. My written comments contain a full analysis of the resolution, including its factual errors, omissions, and misrepresentations, of which there are many. Members of this committee should ask for references to back up the claims in the resolution before you go on the record supporting them.
Since this is a technical issue that can be hard to engage the public on, People’s Production House has produced two educational videos to explain what white spaces are and why they are important. One is an animated history of our airwaves; it is three and a half minutes long. The other is a two-minute examination of the problems immigrants face using pre-paid calling cards to call friends and family in other countries, which white space devices would help solve. I have included these on a DVD with my written comments. Please watch them and show them to your constituents. These videos are also available on the Internet at our white spaces website, www.speakandlisten.net.
To make this dense issue even more confusing, the Committee Chair and Counsel have both assured me personally that this resolution, while asking for the FCC to takes its time in making a decision, actually supports white space devices. Then why does it not say that?
Why can’t the resolution say nearly the same thing as it now does, but be phrased positively, as in, “The Council of the City of New York urges the Federal Communications Commission to implement proposed regulatory amendments that would allow portable and fixed devices to operate on the “white spaces” of the radio spectrum without causing harmful interference to television broadcasters and wireless microphones.”
We should be excited about what this technology can do for our city, not afraid. Along with my written comments, I am also including a model resolution, which is much more positive. If you want New York City to be considered a leader in the nation on issues of technology, a visionary for the 21st century, I implore you to consider this alternate resolution.
The current draft resolution sends a message that this city is closed for business in the tech sector. It tells advocates like myself and others here today that, if we want to continue our work of trying to bridge the digital divide, we must do it with one wireless hand tied behind our back.
To repeat, the current draft resolution does not even mention the digital divide. 76% of low-income New Yorkers lack a high-speed Internet connection in their home, according to a recent study commissioned by the City's Economic Development Corporation. By bringing meaningful, cheaper Internet access to mobile phones, the opening up of white spaces would do more to impact that inequity than any other measure the government could take. Disparities in mobile phone use, even with data services like email or web, are much smaller than at-home Internet connections, in terms of class and race.
Mobile phones are far more widespread than computers with at-home Internet, especially among the groups currently marginalized from the Internet. According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, “African Americans and English-speaking Hispanics are more likely than white Americans to use cell phones or PDAs for non-voice data applications.” The situation is similar, if not quite as dramatic, for seniors and those with low incomes. Bring cheaper, faster Internet service to those mobile devices and the levels in access start to even out.
Unlicensed, low-power devices would make the most efficient use of our airwaves. After the Digital Television Transition in February, 20 percent of New York City's television channels will be vacant, according to a study conducted by Free Press. That's a lot of a really valuable resource to go unused. The other proposal for what to do with the white spaces is auction them off to big broadcasters. But those high-power signals require buffers that we just don't have in New York; that 20% is in lots of small pieces, not big chunks. So the licensed, high-power option would mean no new providers in NYC – zero. The only way for New York to benefit from white spaces is through unlicensed use.
Why does the resolution not mention the broad coalition of public interest organizations advocating for unlicensed use of the white spaces? Instead, it attributes the pressure for this policy change solely to "an alliance of large technology companies." Considering how organizations like mine have supported the efforts of this committee in the past, that omission is downright offensive.
Even though the resolution mentions many technology companies by name and separately says that Broadway provides "the equivalent of over 44,000 full time jobs," the resolution neglects to mention that software services alone provide over 94,000 jobs to the New York metro area, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The entire tech industry is far larger. Opening up the white spaces would give a serious boost to this industry at a time when our city needs all of the economic help it can get.
Why does the resolution state that "testing by the FCC ... has consistently demonstrated that these devices do not accurately detect occupied channels, and therefore can interfere with wireless microphone transmissions," when in fact the "[white space devices (WSDs)] work perfectly at their intended design specifications,” as Sascha Meinrath and Michael Calabrese of the New America Foundation explain? (“Unlicensed 'White Space Device' Operations on the TV Band and the Myth of Harmful Interference,” Sascha D. Meinrath1 & Michael Calabrese= New America Foundation Wireless Future Program, March 2008.)
In the FCC tests, the devices successfully detected signals as weak as -114dbm, which was below even the -115dbm they were designed to detect and far, far below the -85dbm signal strength that a television needs to display an image. The Shure Microphone and National Association of Broadcaster disinformation refers to levels far lower than the standards the devices were originally required to meet. Saying that the device couldn't detect the signal is like me whispering your name from across the room and then accusing you of being hard of hearing when you don't look up. Keep in mind also that these were prototype devices, intended only to prove a concept, which they did. The certification rules will be stringent.
The resolution states, "If the FCC implements the regulatory changes under consideration, live theatre, the performing arts, film and television production companies will be unable to prevent constant interference with microphone systems, devastating those industries within the City of New York." This is a frightening, but entirely misleading scenario.
There is no one, anywhere that has advocated for certification of any device that would cause interference with television or wireless microphone signals. Trust me. I have a 9-year old sister in Brooklyn who would never forgive me if I did something to harm Broadway musicals. And mine is one of that dwindling class of households that gets television over the air – and I love watching TV. I promise that I would not advocate for anything that would damage either TV or Broadway.
So the argument here is not whether or not there should be interference, the only argument is whether or not the “spectrum sensing” technology will work to prevent interference. It will. Shure themselves advocated for spectrum sensing technology in a November 2004 filing with the FCC:
Shure proposes a three-part interference mitigation solution to protect the wide variety of important wireless microphone uses from harmful interference from unlicensed devices. Specifically, to mitigate potential interference the Commission should (1) identify 2 VHF TV channels and 4 UHF TV channels to be exempt from unlicensed device operations; (2) require unlicensed devices to employ spectrum sensing/dynamic frequency selection techniques in a distributed, cognitive fashion; and (3) implement a “smart” beacon system which would operate on one of the vacant TV channels being used by the wireless microphone system and transmit information concerning the TV channels in use by various wireless microphone systems. (“Comments of Shure Incorporated, In the Matter of Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands: ET Docket No. 04-186,” November 30, 2004.)
Why do they oppose it now?
People’s Production House, like all other WSD advocates, wants the FCC to establish rules for certifying devices that can peacefully coexist on the vacant TV channels. Everyone agrees that if the devices can't follow the rules, they shouldn't be certified. Simple enough. But if you want to pass a resolution to that effect, why frame it so negatively?
If you want to be negative, you should turn your attention to the wireless microphone manufacturers who, for years now, have deceptively marketed their products to Broadway productions, music venues, and houses of worship. Despite deceptive advertising by wireless microphone companies to the contrary, only film and television productions are authorized to use the systems. Wireless microphone manufacturers – including Shure, Nady, VocoPro, Audio2000, Sennheiser, Audix, Electro Voice, Hisonic International, and Pyle Audio – who have marketed their products to unauthorized users without informing them of the need for a license should be investigated and held accountable. I have notified the New York State Attorney General of these concerns.
That punishment should in no way apply to the Broadway League. I believe we need an amnesty for past, unauthorized users who were deceived and we need a new license class to permit them to operate legally from now on. Why doesn’t the resolution adopt this position? Perhaps that what it means to urge the FCC “to refrain from implementing proposed regulatory amendments … without ensuring that such amendments will not negatively impact … all incumbent wireless microphone users.” But that is a really twisted, negative way to make the statement. Why not urge the FCC to adopt measures to protect currently-unauthorized users of wireless microphone systems, while also closing the digital divide and boosting our economy?
We cannot ask the FCC to delay their consideration. Many of the wireless microphones are operating in the 700 Mghz band, which the Commission has already auctioned off to Verizon and others. Others of the TV channels where the microphones now operate will be dedicated to public safety. Wireless microphone users have to vacate these bands before the DTV transition or they will be the ones causing interference with proprietary mobile services and critical public safety communications.
The current draft resolution makes it seem like the wireless microphones can just stay where they are, but they cannot. They were squatting an abandoned building, which was fine, but Congress is now tearing down that building to give a luxury condo to Verizon and erect a new police precinct. There is a serious discussion going on right now at the FCC about where these microphone users should go. This resolution is not a productive contribution to that. I refer you to the comments submitted by the Public Interest Spectrum Coalition to the FCC in which they propose a new “General Wireless Microphone Service” as an appropriate solution. (“Petition To Create A General Wireless Microphone Service,” Informal Complaint and Petition of The Public Interest Spectrum Coalition, July 16, 2008.)
The worst part of the current draft resolution is that it suggests that we have to choose between wireless microphones and new devices to close the digital divide, when the new technology allows us to have both. If some group wanted to sacrifice low-income New Yorkers to preserve Broadway, I would oppose them, but I guess I would understand their position. But to sacrifice low-income New Yorkers for no reason at all, as this resolution does, is simply madness.
I urge you to vote against this resolution.
[PDF]