Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Questions FCC's 'White Spaces' Decision
narramissic writes "Late last month a wireless prototype submitted by Microsoft and other members of the White Spaces Coalition was rejected by the FCC because it interfered with cable channels. Microsoft, though, claims that the device was malfunctioning when the FCC tested it. From the article: 'In a letter to the FCC Monday, Microsoft said the scanner in one of two prototypes was damaged and "operated at a severely degraded level. The damaged scanner accounted for the entire discrepancy between the Microsoft and the FCC bench test data," said Ed Thomas, a consultant for the White Spaces Coalition and a former chief of the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology.'"
I find it highly unlikely that a Microsoft product would unexpectedly malfunction.
Unless I've been understanding this wrong, this thing wasn't just a Microsoft prototype. It was submitted by several companies, so why is Microsoft the only one who is questioning it? Are the others backing Microsoft in their complains? Do the others not care enough? Or is there something more nefarious going on - do the others think that the FCC's claims are true?
Grammar Nazi
...great. now the devices are failing in tests - some would wish others would have failed there too instead of...well...at home. great step forward, microsoft.
now all we need ist that little nifty step towards working devices!
Well...I'm rooting for MS on this one. Some 3rd world countries have better wireless broadband access than we do.
The telecom and cable monopolies are holding the FCC in their pockets and stifling innovation.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
"Microsoft, though, claims that the device was malfunctioning when the FCC tested it."
Yea, if they were running vista that would expalin a lot.
(ding down my Karma again, i think its funny.)
detected during the testing? And if it was, why was the test not scrapped? This is dumb, when you do testing to certify, calibrate or evaluate something you make sure that the unit is functioning 100% before you begin. At least that's the way it's been everywhere I've ever worked.
Let me see if I got this straight. Microsoft is in a position to handpick the best unit of all their prototypes to deliver to the FCC for testing. They choose to send in the malfunctioning one. They then complain about how the FCC is being unfair due to their own incompetence? Yep, sounds like Microsoft to me.
So, you mean excessive white space is the reason why Microsoft's code is so bloated? Man, all this time I thought it was something else!
Actually this will only be version 2. Everyone knows that with MS it's best to wait for version 3.0 of any product.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Except the FCC is now the test ground, instead of PCs worldwide? ;)
...manipulate the data.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
I would imagine it's the applicant's responsibility to supply a functioning prototype. Otherwise it's like retroactively claiming you were feeling unwell when you sat your finals and didn't get the grade you were hoping for.
Prosperity is only an instrument to be used, not a deity to be worshipped. Calvin Coolidge
The whole point of FCC testing is to confirm the device works to specifications and doesn't violate FCC rules regarding emissions. It failed, and Microsoft needs to submit their design again. To imply the FCC was somehow faulty as is suggested by the "White Spaces" industry wag man (who also is one of those in-and-out regulatory-to-industry guys) is classic FUD. Fix your prototype, MS, and the FCC will certify it.
Don't send us your broke ass shit next time.
Aren't they dead yet?
While this does sound like a good idea, to weaken the apparent strangle hold the broadcasting companies have on the FCC, I'm just not sure if I really want MS to loosen that grip. After all, what's better? Letting MS control the FCC or the broadcast companies? I guess it's a start though.
...isn't this exactly what the FCC wants to avoid happening? Failing devices mucking up other channels?
So what's the point of Microsoft saying 'oh, it was screwing up when you were testing it'...
If it mucks up other channels while it is malfunctioning it's not going to be commissioned...that's the whole point of testing it...isn't it?
If it doesn't mess up other channels while it's working fine, then fine...but the whole idea that when it malfunctions it interferes with other transmissions...is the perfect reason not to pass this thing in my mind.
Every cable system gets a free Phishing Network channel.
Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
With any product that can disrupt other services - in this instance, taking out your neighbor's TV reception or data link if the "scanner" doesn't detect the "channel" is already in use - the product needs to be designed to "fail safe."
In other words, the device should self-test critical functions, and if any do not meet requirements, the device needs to indicate the failure AND NOT TRANSMIT.
Basic rational design.
If the "scanner" fails to detect an "in use" channel properly (self test to ensure it does), the transmitter shouldn't just push ahead and transmit, it should alarm and go to standby.
If the device can just go ahead and transmit, as Microsoft's did, the FCC is absolutely right: The device (and possibly service) should not be allowed.
--
Tomas
In some cases, RF automatic tunig circuits need the white spaces as a way to distinguish the signal envelope (ie. the "edges" of the signal it is tracking). If you pack the white spaces with RF then those edges get blurred and some AFC circuitry will malfunction.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
...Microsoft would know better then to try to demo their work at an important event.
Hey, everyone familiar with Microsoft products knows that!
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
Recent indications from the FCC have been that they will approve just about any technology regardless of how much spectrum polution it produces as long as it advances broadband availability. A good example of this is acess broadband (power line internet or BPL wikipedia has a good summary on this) which renders almost the entire HF spectrum unusable in areas where it is installed.
For the FCC to have rejected this technology, it must have been broken so badly that it has no chance of working.
I'm not rooting for MS or the FCC on this one. Why? Because Microsoft will patent the technology to lock it in, fuck it up, and we won't be any better than the cable companies.
Hell, I'll even take Apple over MS. They'll patent the hell out of it too, but it least it will look nice and probably have a lot fewer bugs.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Microsoft should submit a movie of it working properly, like they did for the brouser issues. Just ignore the guy's clothing changing randomly during the continuous demonstration.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
This is Microsoft trying not to accuse FCC Commissioners of outright sabotage, though this is likely what happened. It's very convenient that the prototype "broke" in exactly the way the opponents of the "white space" initiative wanted. The same interests (TV Broadcasters) that heavily bribed* the FCC Commissioners. Commissioners also had a backup they chose not to use. An earlier (extremely similar) Philips device worked perfectly.
This is not the "MS tech doesn't work" story the submitter tried to spin it as, but a "government screwing consumers" story.
* "Campaign contributions" are bribes. "Above board" donations are made to campaigns and they're married with smaller "under the table" bribes. A $10,000 cash bribe seems a lot bigger if it's married to a $100,000 "legitimate" campaign contribution.
But then they issue a press release. Somehow it's unfair that their device failed its tests; their device was malfunctioning but if it had been working correctly it would have passed?
It's the same old tune - those mean old government agencies won't dance to Microsoft's tune, so they'll appeal to the court of public opinion. It's worked so well for them in the past, why not give it another go?
When there's a difference of opinion then PR stunts like this have some value. But in situations like this one where a device was being measured against technical standards and failed - that's not negotiable. Trying to use the same old trick here just makes them look foolish - and gives another good look at the man behind the curtain...
with the cable frequencies. Had they not seen it, Microsoft could have pumped a few million into promoting this noisy spec to flood the market with devices laying waste to clean cable signals. Then, its IPTV business starts looking a whole lot better. With an end to end tie-in of Microsoft software in the US IPTV( UltimateTV? ) market, Microsoft gets to own the channels like they currently own the PC OEM channels. Doesn't that sound like fun?
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
The article failed to mention that the FCC did not test the other device Microsoft sent them at all. Let's see... vendor sends us two test devices. One doesn't work. Let's declare that the device design is flawed? Fucking retards down at the FCC are braindead.
with the cable frequencies. Had they not seen it, Microsoft, Google, HP, Intel, Philips, Dell, Earthlink, and Samsung could have pumped a few million into promoting this noisy spec to flood the market with devices laying waste to clean cable signals. Then, Microsoft's, Google's, HP's, Intel's, Philips', Dell's, Earthlink's, and Samsung's IPTV business starts looking a whole lot better. With an end to end tie-in of Microsoft, Google, HP, Intel, Philips, Dell, Earthlink, and Samsung software in the US IPTV( UltimateTV? ) market, Microsoft, Google, HP, Intel, Philips, Dell, Earthlink, and Samsung get to own the channels like they currently own the PC OEM channels. Doesn't that sound like fun?
[There. Fixed that for you.]
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Rather than go through all the replies to this story making fun of Microsoft, saying the FCC should wait for SP1, accusing Microsoft of trying to get some sort of patent on the device so they can PWN TEH AIRWAVEZ OH NOES XBOX HUEG LOL!!!eleventy-one! et cetera, et cetera, maybe it will be more effective to point out something the summary only briefly alludes to:
This is not a Microsoft initiative. This device was submitted by the White Spaces Coalition, which consists of Microsoft, Google, HP, Intel, Philips, Dell, Earthlink, and Samsung. If you're about to post some kind of rant about Microsoft taking over the world or whatever else, go through your post once (use the dreaded "Preview" button, if necessary). Everywhere you use the word "Microsoft" or "MS" or "Micro$oft" or "M$" or any pronoun whose antecedent is one of those terms, subsitute in for that word "Microsoft, Google, HP, Intel, Philips, Dell, Earthlink, and Samsung," then see if your post still makes sense.
If not, consider not saying anything.
Just my advice.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
In other words, the device should self-test critical functions, and if any do not meet requirements, the device needs to indicate the failure AND NOT TRANSMIT.
Dead on. But:
If the "scanner" fails to detect an "in use" channel properly (self test to ensure it does), the transmitter shouldn't just push ahead and transmit, it should alarm and go to standby.
Which breaks if you bring it up in an environment that doesn't have any "in use" channels to detect. Like in a remote environment (such as my place in a lightly-settled section of Nevada desert) which has zero detectable TV signals and virtually no daytime broadcast radio - exactly the sort of place you'd want to "wire for broadband" with wireless.
IMHO the right algorithm is not an up-front self-test, but a CYA check during turn-up:
- Check for in-use channel. If not found:
- Momentarily make a VERY SMALL amount of signal of your own and see if you detect that, to check the detector. If you do:
- THEN turn on normal transmitter power.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It cam be done on purpose.
Also don't we have bigger fish to fry? Like making sure BPL diesn't go LIVE.
that's great only Microsoft, Google, HP, Intel, Philips, Dell, Earthlink, and Samsung don't have any advantage in screwing up cable reception. But Microsoft does.
e rry-Kaplan/dp/0140257314/ref=sr_1_1/104-3608395-58 30353?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187130933&sr=8-1
Have you not seen Microsoft join various boards, organizations, and/or committees and constantly nitpick the process, technology, people, etc? There's an old but easy to read book out called "StartUp" which gives a hint as to how Microsoft does business. Meanwhile, back in Redmond, their engineers are busy hacking together their version which only runs on Windows. And in the end, they go off and release their own version while the spend millions in marketing telling the world+dog how wrong/bad/dangerous,etc the standard stuff is and how great their stuff is.
Here's the book link:
http://www.amazon.com/Startup-Silicon-Adventure-J
Was Microsoft trying to pull something in this case? It is HIGHLY likely given their history but were they also just inept at building something which worked? Another possibility for sure.
What does Google, HP, Intel, Philips, Dell, Earthlink, and Samsung have to do with this anyways? It was Microsoft submitting the device and it was Microsoft complaining not Google, HP, Intel, Philips, Dell, Earthlink, and Samsung
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Does anyone who is actually building these devices for the White Spaces Coalition? Is it in-house? A university? Telecom-equipment manufacturer? Is it based on Microsoft's KNOWS? I never thought I'd be rooting for MS but on this fight I've got my fingers crossed for them.
Besides regular broadcast television, the TV spectrum is also used by public safety communications, wireless microphones, low-power TV, TV translators, and medical telemetry systems. Detecting whether a channel is in use is a real problem.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I took a van I was thinking of buying to a mechanic for evaluation. The mechanic said forget it, it had a bad head gasket, among (many) other problems.
When I told the owner of the car the bad news, he said he didn't think I should trust that mechanic.
... in exactly the same way as they repeatedly fail to "notice" proven interference caused by the BPL industry. They've been violating their own regulations for years in not immediately shutting down BPL "demonstration projects" as soon as interference is brought to their attention by independent RF engineers. Instead, like everyone in this consumer-butt-fucking administration, they insist on further "proof" of all alleged (and previously demonstrated) interference. They are simply in the BPL industry's pocket.
Now I can stop wearing my tin-foil helmet to protect me from the Blue Wave of Death ...
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Yes, that's right. If one sample meets the limit and another does not, how would the test tech know which one was truly defective? In the case of interference testing, a broken product often seems better than the working one (it's likely to have fewer or weaker signals making noise, hence lower interference measurements). The unit was tested as received, and that sample's performance determines "pass" or "fail".
The nature of certification tests is that the test sample represents all products shipped. It's the manufacturers' responsibility to deliver working test samples. If the manufacturer didn't have anybody present to demonstrate the failing unit really was broken, the test technician not only was justified in giving a "test failure" verdict, but as an independent evaluator also was obligated to do so.
The system then interferes with licensed spectrum holders when there's a normal failure of the receivers in the real world too then, eh?
Sounds like M$ is arguing against the thing, not for it. Since failures happen in the real-world too.
Frankly, the FCC is making billions of dollars (and not refunding anything back to the taxpayer) selling/auctioning rights to spectrum.
They're never going to give away "whitespace". They'll just wait until this dies down and then auction it off too. They just hadn't figured it out yet as a source of billions more in "revenue".
+++OK ATH
Maybe it's a dumb question. How does a radio (wireless) device interfere with cable (non-wireless) channels. The white space is unused spectrum in the air, isn't it?