Will White Spaces Equal More Choices?

My problem with broadband? It's the lack of real choice.

Currently what we have is the kind of "choice" offered by fast food companies selling third-rate beef wrapped in chemical-laden buns who try to persuade you that you can have it your way when the choice is little more than with or without onions.

What I'm talking about is real choice, the kind of choice that shows that the world of commerce is a level playing field and it isn't just a case of he who has the most money gets to squeeze the market dry.

I have complained many times about the lack of choice in Internet access and people have argued that if you can switch service providers then there is choice. I contend that when switching is painful -- when there are penalties or delays or other impediments -- then choice is illusory.

So, what do we need to foster an Internet connectivity marketplace with real choice? It's obvious: A broader playing field with low entry barriers so there are more competitors.

Much to my surprise, and the surprise of many others, the FCC has just taken what could be a step forward by approving the use of "White Spaces" as an alternative for Internet access.

White Spaces is the term for the radio spectrum that will be vacated next February when the FCC mandates that analog television broadcasters transmitting from 54MHz to 806MHz go digital and restrict their transmissions to the range 54MHz to 698MHz. That frees up a band 208MHz wide which is a lot of radio capacity to just have lying around.

Commerce, just like nature, abhors a vacuum, so into this opportunity stepped a consortium of power players, namely Microsoft, Google, Dell, HP, Intel, Philips, EarthLink, and Samsung Electro-Mechanics calling themselves the White Spaces Coalition.

The Coalition's proposal is to use the White Spaces for wireless Internet connectivity that will start at 10Mbps and in short range applications may achieve 50M to 100Mbps.

Of course vested interests -- such as television companies, the National Association of Broadcasters and companies that sell wireless audio systems -- all argued that allowing unlicensed use of these frequencies would compromise the integrity of their transmissions. After an 18-month study the FCC concluded these naysayers were full of it so on Nov. 4, U.S. election day, the FCC voted unanimously to allow unlicensed use of approved devices operating in the White Spaces.

Backing up the blandishments of the Coalition has been a diverse group that includes the Free Press, the National Organization for Women, Feminist Majority, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, Public Knowledge, Media Access Project, MoveOn.org, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Common Cause and the Center for Media Justice.

I find this fascinating. Just consider how often powerful lobbies manage to pervert policies and programs that would be potentially valuable to society in general into windfalls for a small number of commercial or political concerns. And yet this landmark decision could end up giving consumers and small businesses in areas without broadband access a mainstream route to the Internet and weaken the vice-like grip that the major ISPs have on the existing market.

So, will White Spaces Internet Access become what all the non-Coalition supporters hope for, or will it just wind up being a gravy train for the Coalition members and ultimately provide a wider range of non-choices? After all, only Google claims a deficit in the evil department, and if there's enough money involved, can we even trust it?

Gibbs has his doubts in Ventura, Calif. Share your uncertainties with backspin@gibbs.com.