This week, the Federal Communications Commission will vote on an item that could either open the door to a dream of vast economic growth, innovation and consumer benefits, or bury the dream out of excessive caution and concern for incumbent interests.

The FCC is currently putting the final touches on an order to advance the so-called “white spaces” proceeding, the future of which may well hinge on the details of this Thursday’s order. Tomorrow, we may learn whether the door will be opened to innovation and the multi-billion dollar market promised by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, or whether the possibilities will be delayed or rendered DOA through loopholes and special interest carve outs.

Politico offers a thorough breakdown of the history and the politics of this issue. In a nutshell, there was a political battle between technology companies and television broadcasters in 2007 and 2008 over whether idle spectrum in between television channels (the “white spaces”) would be opened up for use on an unlicensed basis, under which any approved device could communicate with any other approved device, just like Wi-Fi spectrum. As a technical matter, the white spaces spectrum is highly valuable for wireless broadband because it carries better over distances and through walls; yet, because the available spectrum varies from market to market in amount and frequency, it is not suitable for auction for exclusive use.

Given this background and strong campaigning by technology companies and public interest groups, in 2008, under former chairman Kevin Martin, the FCC decided to allocate the white spaces spectrum for unlicensed use. Although it made substantial progress, the 2008 order left a host of unresolved questions and petitions for reconsideration in its wake, and the FCC needs to do more to make effective use of white spaces a reality.

Chairman Genachowski, after a substantial delay, has hopped on the white spaces bandwagon and begun cheering its virtues. Those of us in the white spaces community are glad to have his support – but we’re not sure the FCC is going to get it right. The devils are in the details with this proceeding, and there are a quite a lot of them.

The Politico coverage notes that the FCC’s current order may allow wireless microphones to use any available channels in the spectrum, which would prevent broadband devices from using those channels. In urban areas – characterized by a large number of television stations, leaving less vacant spectrum to begin with, and a large number of wireless microphones that may seek the few available channels – such a provision could act to occlude entirely the spectrum from use by broadband devices.

Although wireless microphone priority is perhaps the most concerning issue, there are many others worth investigating. Restrictions on power levels and antenna heights for the devices, even in rural areas where the potential for interference is negligible, may greatly limit the use of white spaces spectrum in fixed wireless settings, where the spectrum can potentially enable greater choice and competition for broadband service in rural areas. Minute details regarding the database used to verify spectrum availability could create substantial hurdles for innovation in the device market, such as requiring excessively frequent check-ins. And, although access to backhaul at reasonable rates remains a problem in many parts of the country, exclusive use of white spaces spectrum for wireless backhaul may be an inefficient solution at too great a cost.

All of these problems can be ameliorated through proper rules. As one example, wireless microphones could have a narrow scope of channels they can use, to ensure that enough spectrum is available for white spaces devices, even in urban areas. Alternatively or in addition, wireless microphones seeking substantial reservations could be assessed a fee to register in the FCC’s database, and could assert through a sworn affidavit that other, non-conflicting spectrum is not adequate for their purposes. Once the FCC determines how best to make the balances between white spaces devices and other would-be users of the spectrum, the rules can be structured appropriately.

But the FCC has to get the balance right. Without fixing the devils in the details, white spaces devices may have insufficient spectrum for meaningful use, which would lead to greatly reduced investment and adoption, and would thus limit the innovation and consumer benefits that could arise. FCC Chairman Genachowski said his goal was to “spur the development of another new, huge industry” – billions of dollars in economic value each year, according to some studies. Right now, this potential industry, and the consumer benefits that could arise from it, appear to be at risk. Let’s all hope the FCC gets this right on Thursday, instead of letting it become yet another unfulfilled or delayed promise.