IT’S a sad state of affairs when the interests of American consumers – and our digital fate – are being better represented by Google than by government. But that’s the state of the debate over what to do with the “white spaces” between TV channels.
The white spaces are the spectrum that will be freed up when TV broadcasters finish switching to wavelengths reserved for digital transmission in 2009. Google wants the spectrum liberated so any of us can freely use it, as we do now with wi-fi frequencies.
Google cofounder Larry Page made a rare appearance in Washington recently to push the point, arguing that unlicensed white spaces could turn into “wi-fi on steroids.”
Proponents say this would give consumers data-transmission speeds in the billions of bits a second – versus the millions we get, at best, today – and without wires. We could then do anything online – including, even, watching and sending video – from anywhere.
It would also serve a strategic, economic goal: getting the entire nation connected to high speed.
Measure nations by what percentage of their population has broadband, and the United States is a shameful 15th in the world, and falling. If Google’s right, the white spaces can change that.
So what’s not to love? Well, many powerful lobbies are dogging the Federal Communications Commission on the issue. The FCC has so far taken four years to make a decision.
The agency doesn’t exactly operate at broadband speeds; it has been holding up the Sirius-XM merger for almost 16 months now.
The National Association of Broadcasters – which has been lobbying the FCC against Sirius-XM – has been trying to stop the freeing of the white spaces. It argues that it could interfere with its members’ signals.
Of course, it has another, unspoken fear: If we can all watch – and make – any video we want anywhere anytime, we won’t be prisoners to broadcasters’ channels anymore.
Only about 13 percent of Americans still watch TV over antennae, anyway. This is really about competition, or protection from it.
Also lobbying against Google at the FCC: mobile-phone companies – who likewise fear competition. When we can get fast bandwidth on portable devices, we can use those gadgets to do anything from making phone calls to browsing the Web.
In other words, kiss those old phones and two-year contracts goodbye and turn to new, open devices that run software from – you guessed it – Google.
Phone companies want the FCC to license exclusive use of this spectrum to them so they can rent it to us. Google would rather show us ads.
Entertainment, sports and medical interests also worry that use of the white spaces could interfere with their microphones and wireless devices, which use those frequencies now.
But the FCC has been testing methods to ensure that devices won’t interfere with each other – as wi-fi isn’t affected by microwave ovens even though they operate on the same frequency. Google’s Page says he’s confident there are methods to guarantee against interference. And when it comes to technology, I tend to trust Page and his allies in the fight: Microsoft, Philips, Dell, Intel and H-P.
The government shouldn’t be protecting the entrenched interests and faltering business models of legacy industries like broadcast, cable and phone. Instead, the FCC should be encouraging competition in the marketplace and sparking innovation – especially in an arena so critical to the strategic health of the American economy.
And shouldn’t the FCC be standing up for the consumer, helping to get everyone better service at a lower cost? I vote with Google on this.
In fact, why don’t we just hand the government over to Google? It’s already organizing our knowledge and taking charge of whole industries. It’d likely do a better job of governing than all the bureaucrats in Washington.
Jeff Jarvis teaches journalism at CUNY, blogs at Buzzma-chine.com, and is writing a book, “What Would Google Do?” for a division of Harper-Collins.