Terahertz WiFi

While labs across the world are busy figuring out how to implement the 5G standards there are scientists already working in the higher frequency spectrum looking to achieve even faster speeds. The frequencies that are just now being explored are labeled as the terahertz range and are at 300 GHz and higher spectrum. This spectrum is the upper ranges of radio spectrum and lies just below ultraviolet light.

Research in these frequencies started around 2010, and since then the achieved broadband transmission speeds have progressed steadily. The first big announced breakthrough in the spectrum came in 2016 when scientists at the Tokyo Institute of Technology achieved speeds of 34 Gbps using the WiFi standard and the 500 GHz spectrum range.

In 2017, researchers at Brown University School of Engineering were able to achieve 50 Gbps. Later that year a team of scientists from Hiroshima University, the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology and Panasonic Corporation achieved a speed of 105 Gbps. This team has also subsequently developed a transceiver chip that can send and receive data at 80 Gbps – meaning these faster speeds could be moved out of the lab and into production.

Like with all frequencies, when transmitted through the air, the higher the bandwidth the shorter the distance until a radio transmission scatters. That makes the biggest challenge for using these frequencies the short transmission distances. However, several of the research teams have shown that transmissions perform well when bounced off walls and the hope is to eventually achieve distances as long as 10 meters (30 feet).

The real benefit of superfast bandwidth will likely be for super-short distances. One of the uses of these frequencies could be to beam data into computer processors. One of the biggest impediments to faster computing is the physical act of getting data to where it’s needed on time, and terahertz lasers could be used to speed up chips.

Another promising use of the faster lasers is to create faster transmission paths on fibers. Scientists have already been experimenting and it looks like these frequencies can be channeled through extremely thin fibers to achieve speeds much faster than anything available today. Putting this application into the field is probably a decade or more away – but it’s a breakthrough that’s needed. Network engineers have already been predicting that we will exhaust the capabilities of current fiber technology on the major Internet transmission paths between major POPs. As the volume of bandwidth we use keeps doubling we will be transmitting more data in a decade or two between places like New York and Washington DC than all of the existing fibers can theoretically carry. When fiber routes get that full the problem can’t be easily fixed by adding more fibers – not when the volumes double every few years. We need solutions that involve fitting more data into existing fibers.

There are other applications that could use higher frequencies today. For example, there are bandwidth needs for specific applications like real-time medical imaging and real-time processing for intricate chemical engineering that need faster bandwidth that is possible with 5G. The automated factories that will create genetic-based drug solutions will need much faster bandwidth. There are other more mundane uses of the higher frequencies. For example, these frequencies could be used to replace X-rays and reduce radiation risks in doctor’s offices and airports.

No matter what else the higher frequencies can achieve, I’m holding out for Star Trek holodecks. The faster terahertz frequencies could support creation of the complex real-time images involved in truly immersive entertainment.

These frequencies will become the workhorse for 6G, the next generation of wireless technology. The early stages of developing a 6g standard is underway with expectations of having a standard by perhaps 2030. Of course, the hype for 6G has also already begun. I’ve already seen several tech articles that talk about the potential for having ultrafast cellular service using these frequencies. The authors of these articles don’t seem to grasp that we’d need a cell site every twenty feet – but facts don’t seem to get in the way of good wireless hype.

What’s the Future for PEG Channels?

Last September in Docket 05-0311 the FCC proposed changes to cable regulations that could threaten the continued existence of PEG channels. The term PEG channel refers to Public, Educational and Government and refers to channel slots given to local governments and school systems for programming. Local governments routinely broadcast government meetings on these channels. In many areas, the channels are used during the day by the school system. PEG channels have a particularly important role during local emergencies and often become the only source of local information during floods, hurricanes, or big fires.

PEG channels came into existence during the negotiations for cable franchises in the 1970s and 1980s. Many, but not all cities asked for a channel slot to be used to present important local content to subscribers. Cities have routinely used the channels to broadcast city council meetings, while some cities go much further and broadcast a wide array of public meetings. Like most consultants who work with cities, I’ve been broadcast on local PEG channels hundreds of times (and if that didn’t break the system, I don’t know what would!)

The proposed FCC rule change would allow cable companies to put a value on in-kind contributions required by franchise agreements and deduct those from the amounts paid for franchise fees. In addition to providing PEG channels, other in-kind contributions might include things like free broadband or cable TV for city offices, and broadband connections between government locations (often referred to as an I-Net).

To be fair to the FCC, the proposed rules are considering excluding PEG channels from the list of -in-kind contributions – but that exclusion is no sure thing. Like most FCC dockets this one has not guaranteed decision date and could be decided at any time.

Numerous local and federal politicians have commented on the docket and are begging the FCC to not kill PEG channels. They figure, probably correctly, that the cable companies will place a too-high value on the local channel slot as a way to lower their costs.

One of the interesting things about this docket is that cable companies don’t pay franchise fees – these are invariably passed on to customers and added to customer bills. Cable companies have argued for many years that they are at a disadvantage because their customers pay the franchise fees – often set at levels between 3% and 5% – but these fees don’t apply to satellite broadband or to the newer online programming.

If the FCC docket passes, and if the in-kind contributions apply to PEG channels then local governments will face a dilemma. Franchise fees today go straight into general city coffers in most cities. These fees have been steadily dropping in recent years due to cord cutting, and as cable customers leave a cable company the franchise fees drop accordingly.

Cities would be faced with covering the cost of in-kind contributions, funded directly out of the franchise fees they’ve collected for the last 40-50 years. This would pit different parts of local government against each other – should a city accept lower franchise fees or else kill the PEG channels? Most cities know that PEG channels are the only way that many citizens have of following the actions of local governments. I’ve visited some cities where a significant proportion of the community watch city council meetings, particularly when there is a topic of big local interest. Cities could probably live-stream council meetings to the web – but they understand that not everybody has broadband access, particularly in rural communities. It’s much easier for citizens to follow local government if the meetings are routinely rotated on a PEG channel.

Cities also face the loss of other in-kind contributions, although those have been largely going away in recent years as franchise agreements come up for renegotiation. There was a time when the cable companies provided a free or subsidized broadband connection between city buildings as part of an I-Net. While there are many I-Nets still in existence, many have been discontinued, or no longer offered for free. In such cases, cities either pay for the broadband connections or builds fiber to connect city buildings.

In the long run, this change is probably inevitable. While nationwide cable penetrations were still at around 70% at the end of last year, the rate of cord cutting seems to be accelerating. The most current snapshot of cord cutting shows a rate of customer loss equal to 3% of market share annually. Assuming that traditional cable TV follows the path of landline voice service, the amount of franchise fees – and even the requirement to have a franchise is diminished. At some point, if Congress ever passes another telecom act, they will probably consider deregulating both cable TV and landline voice.