Does simple, secure, reliable, affordable, high-speed, wireless Net access sound like a dream? It isn't. It's totally feasible - but neither the telcos nor the FCC want you to know about it.
The solution is called "spread spectrum," a technology that sends data at high speeds (up to 3 Mbs per second) over unregulated radio frequencies primarily in the 902-928 megahertz band. Spread spectrum could connect you with your ISP at very high speeds, without dialing a phone or messing with a cable.
Advocates want the FCC to make even more spectrum available for unlicensed use. But, unsurprisingly, the issue all comes down to money.
Telephone companies have launched a lobbying effort to convince regulators that ISPs should pay access charges. Unlicensed data communication potentially cheats them out of lots of dough.
When ISPs start paying for per-minute usage, so too will many more consumers. That may well spell the end of flat-rate Internet-access pricing.
The issue is also about auction revenue for the FCC. For almost two years now, the agency has been prancing around the electromagnetic spectrum, gleefully collecting billions of dollars in auction dowry.
By the time auctions became fashionable, the unlicensed wireless data industry had become active enough in the 902-928 MHz band that it had amassed an impressive lobbying force. These lobbyists then convinced the FCC to modify rules for the upcoming auction of Location and Monitoring Service (LMS) licenses in the 902-928 MHz band.
LMS is a non-voice wireless service that allows users to locate and monitor mobile radio units.
The new rules prevent future LMS providers from interfering with existing unlicensed users in that band. In other unlicensed bands, however, that burden falls on unlicensed users.
"Unlicensed wireless data communications exploded almost beyond the FCC's ability to deal with it," said Bennett Kobb, author of the radio frequency handbook SpectrumGuide.
"The unlicensed vendors and users are gaining political capital that was formerly accessible only to the corporate holders of prized FCC licenses," Kobb added. "FCC officials are now publicly recommending that data users look to unlicensed solutions first before adding to the FCC's pile of requests for licenses."
Advocates who are trying to bypass the phone companies with unlicensed spectrum are facing an uphill battle.
First, there's the issue of congressional pressure. Auctioning slices of spectrum has become a popular government enterprise that generates revenue without invoking the evil "tax" word. In addition, Sen. Larry Pressler (R-South Dakota) just lost a re-election bid, transferring his chairmanship of the Senate Commerce Committee (which handles telecom issues) to Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona). McCain is perhaps the most auction-crazed lawmaker on Capitol Hill.
Just how long the unlicensed guys in the 902-928 MHz band can keep licensed users at bay on the interference issue is anyone's guess, but as companies that will pay for LMS licenses in those bands deploy service, lobbying for modification of the interference rules could be a given - both at the FCC and, more importantly, in the halls of Congress.
The companies with something to lose here happen to be Bell companies and other telecom leviathans. These entities have decades of experience lingering in the halls of the FCC, cruising around in search of sympathetic regulatory ears. They talk about "universal service," for example, and tell of its death at the hands of greedy ISPs that don't want to pay their fair share while burdening publicly switched networks.
But at the same time, those networks carry all kinds of data traffic that takes in money from long distance charges applied to rural Internet users, who often don't have access to local ISP hubs. Telcos don't want to lose that money.
Also, the Baby Bells - as well as the three long distance giants - now offer ISP services themselves and little incentive to make the lives of existing ISPs any easier.
For now, the spread spectrum issue is in limbo. The FCC is considering revisions to its rules that could boost the range of unlicensed wireless data communications. The comments were as divergent as you might expect.
Unlicensed spectrum advocates have remained fairly centered on the frequencies' potential for residential users, especially in rural areas. These areas rank low on most companies' upgrade priority lists.
That means that a telephone or cable TV company looking to upgrade its wireline infrastructure to a spiffy new fiber optic pipeline has little if any chance of recovering its investment before the next appearance of Haley's Comet. Urban and suburban areas offer denser populations and more affluent clientele. Simple capitalism takes over. Voila.
Unlicensed wireless data would ensure that rural areas keep up with the rest of America. Advocates argue that spread spectrum technology in particular - using new and more robust technologies with greater line-of-sight potential - could link rural areas to distant ISP ports. The issue becomes even more political when you start talking about schools and libraries, many of which could require local levies or property tax increases just to pay the long distance charges to call into a server 500 miles away.
