New "National Wi-Fi" Story Doesn't Make Sense

Every now and then, we all run into a story that doesn't make sense. That seems to be the case with the notion that the Federal Communications Commission is about to enable the building of new forms of national Wi-Fi service. It is true that the FCC proposes to set aside some spectrum formerly used by TV broadcasters for unlicensed use.

Such uses have in the past created markets for garage door openers and what we now call "Wi-Fi." But so far as anybody really can tell, the FCC has not called for, or said it would directly  or indirectly fund the construction of networks that use unlicensed spectrum.

It will simply make the frequencies available, and then private interests have to do the investing. Some refer to "white spaces" spectrum as "Super Wi-Fi." It is a catchy phrase. But nobody can yet tell whether that is the right analogy. Wi-Fi, after all, has been used as a local area communications protocol, not a "network access protocol."

And while it would be helpful, in an end user or Internet application provider sense, for new unlicensed spectrum to be made available, it would be more helpful for would-be network access providers to have additional spectrum resources. 

Wi-Fi, in the sense of local distribution, is in the same category of things as the use of Ethernet cables or other methods of forwarding packets inside a home, office or other area. Between the local distribution network and the "Internet" is an access network of some kind. And the bigger business issue is access, not local distribution. 

If "white spaces" could create a big new access channel, that would be big news. If used only for local distribution, indeed, as "Super Wi-Fi," that would probably not be so big a deal. 

Recent stories about Google and France Telecom talking about "terminating access" are other cases in point, where a story just doesn't make sense. 

In fact, that whole issue of Google paying access providers or content owners, both ways of redistributing profit in the Internet ecosystem, are a muddled matter. Given enough business or political pressure (such as threatened regulations), dominant and influential firms sometimes find they must make accommodations they would rather not.  

So some would say Google now is "paying France Telecom" for access to Orange customers in Africa, something that would be quite a precedent for Google and any access provider. Others would say Google likewise is paying French content firms for the right to index their content. Google would say otherwise.

But the fact remains that firms sometimes have to bend. Google can rightly say it is not paying for access, only executing peering agreements or interconnection agreements. Google can rightly say it is helping French newspapers retool for a digital age. But France Telecom and French newspapers are going to be getting some revenue, for something, from Google, in ways that allow Google to say it is not paying for termination, or for the right to index content.

As with the case of "white spaces," the actual story is more nuanced than headlines would suggest.