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.'"

Comments

Responsibility

[kaleco]

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.

FUD -- Microsoft needs to prove it works

[dwarmstr]

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.

Re:Soemthing smells fishy

[ShieldW0lf]

If a malfunction results in a failure of the local TV signal rather than resulting in a failure of the device, the FCCs decision is the right one.

Devices are expected to fail. Given a long enough timeframe, ALL of them fail.

MSFT needs to understand "fail safe"

[SmoothTom]

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

Re:hey...

[LunaticTippy]

Imagine if government ran the roads the way they run the spectrum....

You should search "us road privatization" -- we are starting to run our roads the way they run the spectrum.

Right idea but your proposed test has a bug

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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.

Re:Another public relations misfire

[Control Group]

Right, because of course the other companies involved simply decided that the FCC is all-wise, and have no interest in the decision being appealed. It's utterly beyond the realm of possibility that they collectively decided to use the member with the best PR machine to protest the decision. This is obviously Microsoft branching out on its own hook against the wishes of the other members of the coalition in an evil plot to TAKE OVER THE WORLD, MUAHAHAHA!!