The Federal Communications Commission is asking for public feedback in a row over the allocation of airwave frequencies. Its chief Julius Genachowski (pictured) has already backed the view that wireless internet providers could make more efficient use of some frequencies currently held by TV broadcasters.

The argument for the reallocation is based on the view that broadcasters control far more frequencies than they really need, with one study suggesting they use just 20 per cent of their allocated frequencies. As these low frequencies mean signals can travel further and suffer less degradation from barriers such as walls, they’d be particularly suitable for 4G wireless internet and could reduce the number of relay towers needed for wireless broadband services.

As you’d imagine, broadcasters aren’t so keen on the idea, with some even arguing that reallocating frequencies could threaten their ability to provide free over-the-air services, particularly with HD broadcasts on the rise. There are also claims that some of the “unused” frequencies have been earmarked for future broadcasting developments such as making a serious go of broadcasting TV signals to dedicated mobile devices.

Blair Levin, who is developing a national broadband plan for the FCC, revealed that he’s discussed financial incentives for broadcasters, namely “whether there could be a market-clearing solution that allowed them to monetize their extra spectrum, while allowing us to maximize the public good… We want the country to use most effectively one of its most valuable resources, while increasing atonality of those broadcasters who recognize that they’re not maximizing returns for their shareholders.”

The FCC consultation (PDF link) asks for feedback on a number of issues including the principle of reallocating frequencies, ways in which broadcasters can trade existing channel space to avoid redundancy, and how well the broadcasters are using their airspace at the moment. The consultation also specifically asks what the effects would be if the number or availability of free over-the-air channels was indeed reduced.

In a move that will make a start to keeping one of Barack Obama’s campaign promises, the FCC will be proposing a set of rules aimed at preserving and enforcing internet neutrality.

A number of reports have surfaced today which indicate that the head of the Federal Communications Commission, Julius Genachowski, will give a speech Monday at the Brookings Institution in Washington which lays out the plans of the Obama administration to both fully define and enforce the concept of network neutrality, according to an AP story.

Network neutrality is a principle proposed for residential broadband networks and potentially for all networks. A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.

It is anticipated that the new FCC proposals will seek to implement a pledge that Barack Obama made during the presidential campaign. He said then that he fully supported Internet neutrality, i.e. the equal treatment of Internet traffic. Such rules would keep Internet service providers such as Verizon Communications Inc., Comcast Corp. or AT&T Inc., from slowing or blocking certain services or content flowing through their vast networks. It is feared that without strict rules ensuring neutrality of the internet, communications companies could interfere with the transmission of content, such as television shows delivered over the Internet, that compete with other services the ISPs offer, like cable television, much to the detriment of the consumer.

The issue is, of course, about money. Many internet service providers are cable companies or other corporations that license and deliver content via methods other than the internet. It is therefore in their interest to hoard entertainment commodities, ensuring that their companies can realize the best profit from them. Opposing groups do not want to see the freedom of information on the internet fettered for reasons of profit. President-to-be Obama agreed with this latter group during his run for the U.S. Presidency and is now apparently ready to make good on his promise to keep the internet neutral.