Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Questions FCC's 'White Spaces' Decision

Posted by Zonk on from the it-was-broken-when-we-found-it dept.

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.'"

4 of 142 comments (clear)

  1. Responsibility by kaleco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  2. FUD -- Microsoft needs to prove it works by dwarmstr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:Soemthing smells fishy by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  4. MSFT needs to understand "fail safe" by SmoothTom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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