FCC Aims To End Debate With Wireless Tests

narramissic writes "Engineers from T-Mobile, AT&T, M2Z Networks, Nokia, Metro PCS, CTIA and XM Sirius have convened at a Boeing facility in Seattle this week to watch as the FCC performs tests it hopes will quiet debate over a proposed spectrum auction. At issue is the FCC's requirement that the winner offer free wireless broadband services in a portion of the spectrum, a move the wireless industry contends will lead to interference for 3G phone users. The FCC is conducting some of the same tests that T-Mobile, one of the more vocal opponents of the FCC plan, has already done plus some additional tests, focusing on interference between handsets running on the different frequencies. Some of the tests involve using handsets connected to WiMax or UMTS networks running on spectrum the commercial providers would use, and then issuing signals using the proposed new service and spectrum, to determine at what signal strength the proposed service causes the WiMax or UMTS call to drop."

Comments

Stunned

[doc_doofus]

Wow, it's almost like they pulled their collective heads out, and made a decision that seems to make sense.
There must be something nefarious in there somewhere. *Dons patented triple protection foil hat*

Re:Stunned

[jhfry]

"seems to make sense."

That's the problem... it only SEEMS to make sense. What they really need to do is have a panel of respected and neutral engineers design their own test... one that may not be designed to fail.

There have been all kinds of laws and other legislation passed because one party managed to convince a government entity of their case by designing a test to illustrate their case.

One great example is Asbestos... Asbestos, in it's most common uses, was inert and completely safe. Even a lay person could remove asbestos tiles, insulation, etc. with little risk to their health... certainly no more risk than smoking a pack or two of cigarettes. Only those who had frequent exposure to asbestos in an airborn form were ever really at risk.

So why is asbestos, an extremely cheap and effective substance, banned in the US... simply because a test was designed which demonstrated it was unsafe. But it wasn't unsafe on the floor under your child's desk, or wrapped around a steam line, or insulating a boiler, or any of it's many uses. It was unsafe in some situations which could have been made safe with a few laws regulating it's use, the way it was mined and processed, and a few OSHA standards for individuals working with it daily.

Just like hemp, asbestos has been banned without reguard to it's value and relatively low risk to the public simply because someone created a test to show that it CAN be unsafe.

Re:Stunned

[the_humeister]

Kind of like gathering lobster and crab in the Atlantic Ocean I suppose. Those fishermen have the highest job-related death rates of anyone. And we continue to buy such dangerous-to-obtain seafood.

Re:Stunned

[Khisanth Magus]

I'd like for you to tell all the people who died from asbestos poisoning in Amagasaki, Japan due to the asbestos plant there that it is perfectly safe. I actually lived in that city for a while, luckily after the asbestos plant was closed.

Re:Stunned

[Mouse42]

My great aunt died of cancer caused by asbestos exposure. She was only exposed to it through her husband - her husband had preventative treatment, but she did not because they didn't realize she could be exposed through the residue left on his clothing.

Re:Stunned

[hedwards]

Citation please, hemp has not been banned in the US. You just have to import it. What you're suggesting is pretty absurd. Asbestos is known to cause serious bodily harm when used in real world conditions.

Yes,theoretically if you apply asbestos and don't ever have to mess with it and nothing else disturbs it you are correct. But I know people that work around it and it costs a ridiculous amount of money to handle properly when you do have to disturb it.

I know it's popular to be a member of the tinfoil elite, but I've seen hemp products for sale at the local mall. If I can find an item for sale in a public display, it hasn't been banned.

Re:Stunned

[LandDolphin]

Asbestos was intitally banned, but that was over turned and it is now allowed to be used in certain situations. So, some new buildings being built, are being built with Asbestos in them.

Re:Stunned

[Anonymous Coward]

What "We" paleface?

Re:Stunned

[A440Hz]

Just like hemp, asbestos has been banned

Wait--is there a medical use for asbestos, too?

Re:Stunned

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who lost a grandfather to asbestos-related cancer, and who has an aunt whose family lost -all- their possessions when their landlord decided to grind out the asbestos-tile floor in their kitchen*, I'm quite happy to see asbestos banned everywhere forever.

* Fortunately one of my aunt's husband's relative was an asbestos removal specialist, who pre-warned the landlord that he was doing something insanely stupid just before he fired up the machine. This didn't stop him, but it helped win the case when his pants were sued off.

But it wasn't unsafe ... wrapped around a steam line

The bathroom in my college dorm had an asbestos-wrapped pipe running up through the little toilet alcove. The insulation was falling apart, shredding when touched. It was a really tiny space, and I always tried very hard to not disturb it when squeezing in and out. I can't imagine my drunk dorm mates did the same.

Re:Stunned

[Korin43]

I assume by "banned" they meant that you can't grow hemp here, even if it's so shitty that no one would want to smoke it.

Re:Stunned

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with asbestos is, once you have been exposed to an unsafe quantity, it is inside your lungs permanently. Your body never expels it, and you now have a significantly elevated risk of lung disease that is not treatable, and is fatal.

Comparing asbestos, and non reversible fatal lung disease, to spectrum interference, which can be 'reversed' by turning off the offending equipment, is totally whacked.

And what is the comparison between hemp and asbestos have to do with anything?

You really should have brought up DDT since it turns out that the whole danger to DDT was purely a usage problem. Applied properly in specifics use cases, DDT is an amazingly useful pesticide. Lots of benefit with very little risk, when used properly.

Asbestos is more like lead. Useful mainly because it was really cheap. Once suitable replacements were developed in light of the risk, neither one is very attractive anymore, other than in very specific use cases.

Re:Stunned

[Rich0]

I can't say I know much about asbestos in particular but there are many substances in modern society that are unsafe if misused, but which have the potential to benefit life if they are used properly. Most industrial chemicals fall into this category - many are unsafe if mishandled, but if you start banning them left and right there won't be much of modern society left.

The question is one of risk vs reward. The problem is that in modern society we've become so risk adverse that we can't see beyond this. The other problem is that unscrupulous individuals cut corners and bend rules to make a buck. We really need to get beyond this - by reigning in both legal and corporate malfesance.

Nobody should have to live near a plant that releases toxins into the environment. However, the solution to this isn't to completely ban materials that have the potential to improve the general standard of living.

Re:Stunned

[Anonymous Coward]

So why is asbestos, an extremely cheap and effective substance, banned in the US

It isn't. As you agree with, some forms are banned, but not all forms.

Re:Stunned

[Tweenk]

It's more ironic than that. Asbestos is mostly harmless unless you start to remove it. It is mainly the unskilled removal of asbestos, which creates a lot of dust, that causes it to be harmful. This is because only the airborne fibers are carcinogenic, while the bulk form is neutral to human health.

Re:Stunned

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that in modern society we've become so risk adverse that we can't see beyond this.

That's only the problem from the point of view of the guy with the toxins.

For the rest of us, the problem is that the guy with the toxins keeps screaming "you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette" but refuses to actually pay for the eggs he breaks, insisting that everyone else bear the cost of the problem he causes (I originally wrote "his problem", but it's never "his problem"). Suggestions that he stop poisoning the rest of us are met with "but my company does X amount of good to the community!", yet when measured up using the power of capitalism, "X amount of good" never seems to beat "$X amount of damages"... or at least the guy somehow never seems to have $X to spare.

Capitalism IS such an amazing tool though. Just think, if all the asbestos companies had gotten together and put those billions of dollars to work instead of crying about their beloved omelette, they probably could have come up with a treatment, maybe even one that was inexpensive, reducing that $X they had to pay in the end.

Re:Stunned

[jhfry]

If I had mod points I would mod your critisism of my post up. Your right, asbestos was not the best example... but it is insulating the pipes above my head in my office... so it just came to me first.

There are a lot of examples where scientific evidence was provided to motivate legislation where the evidence was tainted because the testing methodolgy was not realistic to the actual application of the product or process. Pesticides are a great example of this!

Re:Stunned

[SoopahMan]

Exactly. How did we get a functional FCC out of this administration? We've got a DoJ that's hiring based on whether you're a Republican and prosecuting Democrats on false charges, an FDA that's corrupt, and yet the FCC seems to not only have things figured out, they're standing up for themselves. I guess we got lucky someone good at their job slipped through the cracks and made it in.

Re:Stunned

[Rich0]

That's only the problem from the point of view of the guy with the toxins.

And a problem for the person who can't buy a drug because everything it is made from is toxic. And a problem for people who buy stuff that can be made in other ways but which end up costing more, meaning that they have to choose between food, drugs, and their fancy new car. And so on...

Everything is connected. Anything that saves people money frees up resources for other things that are more important. If it costs grandma down the street $50 less per year to make her scrapbook albums then that is $50 more in gifts to her grandson who can buy a toy microscope, get interested in biology, and discover the cure for cancer. All things being equal it is better to develop the same stuff using fewer resources.

Any constraints we put on the use of technology raise costs. So, it is better to set constraints of "use this in a safe way" than "don't use this at all."

Again, I can't speak to the specific details of asbestos, but this principle applies in many areas of life, and as a society we tend to choose killing 1000 people statistically over killing 1 person more directly.

Re:Stunned

[KGIII]

Hemp, per this definition, wouldn't have any medical uses unless you wanted to tie a patient down or make hospital gowns out of it.

Re:Stunned

[Anonymous Coward]

Asbestos, in it's most common uses, was inert and completely safe. Even a lay person could remove asbestos tiles, insulation, etc. with little risk to their health... certainly no more risk than smoking a pack or two of cigarettes.

[citation needed]

Re:Stunned

[jhfry]

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2001pres/20010916a.html

"Most people do not become ill from the asbestos they are exposed to. Asbestos exposure becomes a health concern when high concentrations of asbestos fibers are inhaled over a long time period. People who become ill from asbestos are almost always those who are exposed on a day-to-day basis in a job where they work directly with the material. As a person's exposure to fibers increases, either by breathing more fibers or by breathing fibers for a longer time, that person's risk of disease also increases. It can take anywhere from 10 to 40 years for someone to develop an asbestos-related illness after their exposure. Disease is very unlikely to result from a single, high-level exposure, or from a short period of exposure to lower levels. "

The cigarette comment was actually paraphrasing the doctor who treated my father and my grandmother for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis when we were discussing possible environmental causes for their illness. Asbestos wasn't even on the list... but I asked because I believed as most people do, that asbestos was DANGEROUS.

Re:Stunned

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you forgot
"you insensitive clod"

Great Idea... not

[jhfry]

Somehow I have a feeling that T-Mobile's test will result in the same results for the FCC as it did for T-Mobile. If it doesn't then I would argue that the FCC should fine, or even remove T-Mobile's license as they are obviously not capable of properly executing a test.

My question is simply, did the FCC engineers study the actual test itself to determine if the test is really worth doing. It might be a standard test case, as such why is it news, if it's not a normal test I would try and confirm that the test itself is not skewed to prove the point.

It would be relatively easy to create a complex test that appears to illustrate a bad scenerio when in reality is simply takes advantage of some obscure phenomenon. For example, the types of antenna's used, reflection, resonance, etc... could all make the test results say something that is not generally true.

Re:Great Idea... not

[ghoti]

Maybe that's exactly the point? To find out if their results have any merit or if they apply in real-world scenarios. I don't know how much information T-Mobile has provided about these tests, but there's undoubtedly a completely other level of information sharing when their engineers get together and work on the same test.

Re:Great Idea... not

[Anonymous Coward]

It is pretty hard to keep the lid on bad engineering in this day and age. If any engineer is willing to put his neck out for some company he might want to consider looking for another career as more often than not it will come back to haunt him.

Re:Great Idea... not

[Anonymous Coward]

There are multiple ways to cause bias, without including "bad engineering".

Selective tests would produce biased results, without needing to filter the results.

Re:Great Idea... not

[rickb928]

Two things...

1. T-Mobile may have conducted tests in worst-case scenarios. It's their network threatened, they might want to present the worst, not the best, possibilities.

2. As a T-Mobile customer, I would like my service to 'not generally' be interfered with unnecessarily. In fact, I would not like to engage in the struggle to make newly-licensed services not interfere with my service AT ALL. Let's get it right, please? Before we build it? It's bad enough already, ok?

Oh, and 3. Not all agencies or companies are always incompetent. You suspect the T-Mobile engineers are? My service works just good enough to disprove that premise. The FCC, well, let's hope they got good Kung-Fu and can figure this out...

sheesh.

Re:Great Idea... not

[MindStalker]

The free internet frequency is in a much lower frequency. Lower frequencies are stronger but carry less information than higher frequencies, think about big waves versus tiny ripples in a pond. Those tiny ripples can rid atop the big waves but can also be knocked out by them if they aren't smooth. Radio is very different but its a decent analogy.

Re:Great Idea... not

[The_Quinn]

Somehow I have a feeling that T-Mobile's test will result in the same results for the FCC as it did for T-Mobile.

Is there a coherent thought somewhere in that sentence?

Re:Great Idea... not

[PPH]

My question is simply, did the FCC engineers study the actual test itself to determine if the test is really worth doing. It might be a standard test case, as such why is it news, if it's not a normal test I would try and confirm that the test itself is not skewed to prove the point.

It would be relatively easy to create a complex test that appears to illustrate a bad scenerio when in reality is simply takes advantage of some obscure phenomenon. For example, the types of antenna's used, reflection, resonance, etc... could all make the test results say something that is not generally true.

Perhaps the FCC suspects that T-Mobile's tests did just that. Demonstrated that, given some unusual combination of circumstances, interference will occur. But not under real world conditions. And, rather then just studying the write-up of T-Mobile's test setup and results, they have effectively said, "Put up or shut up."

This wouldn't be the first time when a closed network provider wailed and wrung their hands about how some open Internet technology would wreak havoc upon the world and end civilization as we know it.

Re:Great Idea... not

[jhfry]

I realize that I used the same words more than once... but each time those words had different meanings or significance. So actually, it is a perfectly valid and readable sentence... but so that you can more easily parse it:

I have a feeling that the T-Mobile designed test will yeild the same results when it is performed by the FCC as it did when T-Mobile ran the test.

Re:Great Idea... not

[jhfry]

Actually that's really the point I was trying to make. The FCC is repeating the T-Mobile test in an effort to determine if T-Mobile's claims are justified. However, why would T-Mobile lie... if the FCC does verify thier results they could face some severe penalties (I would hope). Instead it would be in T-Mobile's best interest to ensure that the test is designed to fail.

Just like saying chemical X is harmful to humans because it kills rats in a lab when you know that chemical X is toxic to rats but not humans. I believe something like that was done with a sugar substitute once.

Re:Great Idea... not

[Dun Malg]

why would T-Mobile lie... if the FCC does verify thier results they could face some severe penalties (I would hope).

Come on, use your common sense. What basis would they have for fining T-Mobile? It's not illegal to make mistakes in non-mandatory testing, then email your mistaken results to a guy at the FCC expressing your concerns. The fact that it's impossible to prove malice when stupidity is an adequate explanation makes any law prohibiting bad test results highly unlikely.

Re:Great Idea... not

[jhfry]

Your right... however there should be a penalty for deceptions like this. The FCC does very little testing themselves, instead allowing the manufacturer and owner of the spectrum to police themselves. If T-Mobile were to start lying about their test results, they could also be creating overpowered transmitters, not respecting interference regulations, etc.

I would hope that there is some penalty for falsifying test results... perhaps no so much in this case... but in other cases where they are required to certify their equipment.

this to watch

[Anonymous Coward]

have convened at a Boeing facility in Seattle this to watch as the FCC performs tests

omissioninsummary?

Re:this to watch

[HTH NE1]

have convened at a Boeing facility in Seattle this to watch as the FCC performs tests

omissioninsummary?

Signal drop-out.

Ooooookay

[Ngarrang]

Slow news day?

My Summary...

Telecoms: It causes interference! He is our test results.
FCC: We will run our own tests and see if we agree.

Yeah. Moving right along now.

Re:Ooooookay

[pilgrim23]

Hey the FCC is from the Governemnt! I am SURE they are here to help us.

Re:Ooooookay

[Nursie]

My Summary...

Telecoms: It interferes... (with our business model). And coincidentally we think we've found some scientist we can pay to say that it interferes with the handsets too.
FCC: OK, well, we're just going to check that result, you might want to give some more money to your favourite congressmen/senators.

Business as usual.

Re:Ooooookay

[jopsen]

Do I smell irony? Because if you don't believe that your government is here to help you then you should seriously consider moving to another country...

Re:Ooooookay

[Anonymous Coward]

My Summary...

Telecoms: *IT IS FREE.* It causes interference! Here are our test results.

There, fixed it for you.

Re:Am I going to Jail?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you're going to jail.

Copying is a CRIME and you not only copied that entire story, you've also BLATANTLY COPIED the theme song to the intellectual property "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air". The Copyright Enforcement Agency (FBI) have been notified and Copyright Enforcement Agents (SWAT) are on their way.

Why do we need phone companies?

[sm62704]

This may not be entirely on-topic (please mod me down if it isn't), but I don't see why we can't have cell phones themselves as cell bases. It seems that when they first started, yes they needed towers but now everyone has a cell phone. When my phone's not in use, why can't it be used as a "tower" for someone else's call? We should be able to buy a cell phone and never need a phone company.

Re:Why do we need phone companies?

[mweather]

One word: batteries.

Re:Why do we need phone companies?

[pete-classic]

You're very clever, young man, very clever, but it's turtles all the way down!

Does your call just hop from phone to phone until it finds itself on the phone you're trying to call? Does every handset have infinite bandwidth?

I'm all for decentralized models, but I don't think you've thought your idea through very far.

-Peter

Re:Why do we need phone companies?

[MightyYar]

I can see issues with latency, range, and capacity.

Latency because you are making more hops.

Range because you don't have an elevated tower, so the next person with a phone would need to be close by. Plus, the handsets are low-powered and have tiny antennas.

Capacity because your little phone can only deal with one or two calls worth of data. Even a 3G phone will hit a bandwidth limit if more than a few calls get routed through it. If you happen to be one of the few phones within range of a POTS connection, you are going to have a large portion of the grid routing through your phone.

And this is all without even considering the technical challenge of routing everything without contacting a central server. P2P apps can take several minutes to get going in PC land, though it admittedly is a different problem.

Re:Why do we need phone companies?

[fizzer82]

a second word: cancer

Re:Why do we need phone companies?

[fishyfool]

You mean like a mesh network? Your battery life would go to hell in a handbasket. You can however buy a repeater for your home or car. Google "Personal Cell Repeater"

Re:Why do we need phone companies?

[jopsen]

Because in USA that idea would be seen as socialistic -> communistic...

Beside there's bandwidth limits and lots of other practical issues... Especially if you wish to go a few hundred kilometers using that method.

Re:Why do we need phone companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good idea. It's not like we can expect any reliability from the cellphone network as it is today anyway.

Re:Why do we need phone companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

This may not be entirely on-topic (please mod me down if it isn't), but I don't see why we can't have cell phones themselves as cell bases. It seems that when they first started, yes they needed towers but now everyone has a cell phone. When my phone's not in use, why can't it be used as a "tower" for someone else's call? We should be able to buy a cell phone and never need a phone company.

A couple issues with that...

First off, my batteries run down quickly enough when I'm the only one using the phone. If my phone is relaying calls for everyone else in the area I'm sure my batteries will drain even faster.

Next, if you're going to be doing that kind of relaying, I would expect that you'd be broadcasting even more radio waves than right now. And we've already seen that cell phones increase your risk of cancer. The last thing I want to do is broadcast more/stronger radio waves than I am now.

And eventually you'll have to relay the signal to a tower anyway - how else will you connect with landlines? How else will your cell company know where to route the call or who to bill? Setting up a mesh network from the phones themselves might very well increase the maximum range between towers, but it won't eliminate them.

Also, there'll be some limit to just how much data a single cell phone can handle. You can't have 100 phones routing their calls through a single handset.

Re:Why do we need phone companies?

[geekoid]

Why couldn't it work like packet routing?
  I know there is a power supply issue here, but getting to a device shouldn't be an issue.

Maybe they should put repeaters in cars?

OF course neither of them will be powerful enough to skip a decent range, or bounce off a satellite, but you could develop a 'gray net' where the entire net point A to point B could bounce from device to device never getting on the back bone, never going through a TELCO.

Re:Why do we need phone companies?

[realmolo]

The antenna on your cell phone sucks.

Those big antenna towers are VERY sensitive. That's why your crappy little cell phone antenna works. The big towers can detect a very weak incoming signal, and send out a very strong outgoing signal. Your phone can do neither.

Re:Why do we need phone companies?

[Lodragandraoidh]

Five words: not in my back yard(pocket?)

Re:Why do we need phone companies?

[Bigjeff5]

Does your call just hop from phone to phone until it finds itself on the phone you're trying to call? Does every handset have infinite bandwidth?

Yeah, I mean, what's next? Computers that can talk to each other by hopping from one to the next until they reach their destination? Pfft, that's crazy talk. What, are the just supposed to "mesh" together on their own to access other devices accross the world?

My god man, you're insane!! Why, with technology like this even people in Africa could use cell phones!!

And for you people who don't get it, I am referring to, in order: The Internet, Mesh technology, and the OLPC. If you don't see how those can have anything to do with cell phone technology, grab a telecommunications handbook and brush up on what the technology is we are actually using right now. IP and telephony are simply two different methods of doing the same thing, and while the technologies are NOT -directly- transferrable from one to the other, what is possible in one is equally possible in the other, due to their similarities.

For those who STILL don't understand, it is absolutely feasable to use cellphones in a mesh technology, and bandwidth is NOT an issue, because the phone could be set up to only switch for the phones nearest to it. It's also not that hard to set a maximum number of connections for the phone. We do it in a number of ways already, just not necessarily with cell phones.

There are a number of ways of doing it, and all of them are well within our capability. It just makes Cell companies a lot more money to lock you in to their system. Plus, there aren't many alternatives right now, and so far as I know NO good alternatives.

Cheers!

Re:Why do we need phone companies?

[the_raptor]

Go back to networking class and learn about "latency". Oh you might also want to learn about "bandwidth" as well, because what you are calling bandwidth, isn't. There is no magic way to route radio waves, anything in range will pick it up, meaning that portion of the spectrum is tied up. Hint: There is a reason that cell systems become non-functional during disasters.

Re:Why do we need phone companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Virtually all cellphone technologies, (in particular GSM, UMTS, CDMA2000) operate in Frequency Division Duplex (FDD).

What this means is that a cellphone can only "hear" an actual cell tower, and can only "talk" to an actual cell tower. It is a conjugate symmetric relationship. Cell towers can't hear other cell towers and cell phones can't hear other cell phones.

WiMax, OTOH, operates (or at least *can* operate) in Time Division Duplex (TDD) mode. This means WiMax transceivers operate on the same frequency for transmit and receive. However, even though they *can* talk to each other (RF wise), the 802.16 protocol is based on a "master/slave" relationship, where the cell tower controls who transmits and when they transmit. Making this egalitarian (e.g. like WiFi) would be a major overhaul to the protocol, and would pretty much kill WiMax performance.

So no, it is either impractical or downright impossible.

Re:Why do we need phone companies?

[Lumpy]

Why? because that does not make money for the cellphone companies.

99.9% of everything that should work one way but does not is because of money or the loss of money.

Secondly, if you are communicating with your friend 500 feet away, yes you SHOULD be able to call his phone direct. That is what I loved about richochet modems, I could connect direct modem to modem even through the light pole mounted repeaters.

The disabled that feature on newer modems before they died because people were buying modems and not buying service and connecting point to point.

Re:Why do we need phone companies?

[sm62704]

I'll grant you that I'm no expert in cell phone technology, which is why I ask. This is the one place where I'll find experts in about any technology.

There is no magic way to route radio waves, anything in range will pick it up, meaning that portion of the spectrum is tied up.

Yes, my cell phone is a radio. Whatever frequency it's using the way the network is now will also be tied up, how is it any different?

There is a reason that cell systems become non-functional during disasters.

Because they rely on towers, and the trancievers at the towers get congested?

Funny thing, when a couple of tornados tore through my town a couple of years ago, my cell phone worked. My electricity was out for a week and my internet connection was out for month. Landline phones were out, but despite the fact that almost all the towers by my neighborhood (my apartment was right in the tornado's path) were down, my phone worked. None of the landline phones worked for well over a week.

Re:Why do we need phone companies?

[Ironsides]

Why couldn't it work like packet routing?

One word: Latency. Packet routing networks have inconsistent routing. Inconsistent latency causes spacing in the sound in the conversation. Think about the quality of a phone call where you lose every other 1/8th second of sound.

Re:Why do we need phone companies?

[RobBebop]

I would think size would be another barrier. I recognize that you don't need something as large as a brick to transmit signals, but I doubt that cell phones could effectively be used to pass signals to each other without making them larger.

On the internet, routers work because they are dedicated to passing signals back and forth on directed paths. With an "ad hoc cell phone network", if my cell phone was using Cell Phone B for communication with Cell Phone C, I think its likely that the call would drop when Cell Phone B tried to make a call... unless an extra transmitter was added to Cell Phone B and my guess is that this would make Cell Phone B larger and who wants something to be larger when it can be smaller?

Re:Why do we need phone companies?

[mweather]

You can get around that by wearing a tin foil hat.

Re:Why do we need phone companies?

[flatulus]

Your cellular company probably rolled out a few COWs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_On_Wheels

Re:Why do we need phone companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally there are separate uplink and downlink frequency bands. This allows the transmit power to be filtered out of the receiver input so you can transmit and receive at the same time (full duplex). The only widely deployed standard that uses the same frequency for transmit and receive is (or will be) TD-SCDMA in China. You could probably use the TD-SCDMA handset in a mesh network with new software but it cannot be done with the existing GSM or CDMA handsets used in most of the world. They cannot transmit and receive on the same frequency band. That means they can only talk to a basestation where the transmit and receive bands are swapped.

Re:Why do we need phone companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

we need traditional land line type phone companies because that's who owns the backbone over which the calls are networked through...

De De De ...

Re:Why do we need phone companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry Raptor, The. They both got it right. Proper bandwidth management is the most important advantage of a centralized vs. decentralized model (e.g. tower, star-config vs. mesh). And one of the biggest limiting factors for even a two handset hop (repeat) is having the guy on the border of a high-density zone constantly drain his battery relaying calls.

If you fixed those problems, then latency (as Ironsides below points out), is certainly an issue. Where the mesh works, is where you have eliminated all three of those problems. That's why UMA can work. The base stations are plugged in (no battery problems), they have lots of bandwidth per unit area of coverage, not trying to cover a whole skyscraper's worth of users with a scant 20Mhz, and they can hop the packet a couple times before they place it on wired Ethernet with trivial additional latency.

Phones that fit comfortably in your pocket, run all day on an overnight charge, play your videos and display your moving map GPS, are ill suited to this additional task.

Re:Why do we need phone companies?

[George_Ou]

You're suggesting the equivalent of picking yourself up off the ground by your shoe laces.

First of all, you don't have a big enough antenna nor do you have enough transmit power in the cell phone to be a base station. Second, even if you did, are you going to tether a wire to uplink to the telephone network?

Re:Why do we need phone companies?

[George_Ou]

Here's some painful lessons for you
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=981
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=777

Ending the debate?

[DoofusOfDeath]

What corporation has ever considered a debate to be ended when the results aren't favorable to it?

Expect criticism over experimental methodology, analysis of the data, and maybe even allegations of FCC bias by whichever side doesn't get the result it wants.

Free broadband?

[LWATCDR]

Okay...
Who will pay for the bandwidth?
Who will pay for the tower space?
How long will it take to roll out?
Who will get to use it?
Hey I am all for broadband but I don't know if government mandated free broadband is such a good idea.
I just want good reasonably priced fast broadband available to everyone.

Re:Free broadband?

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

I'm with you. Government monopolized services tend to suck. Remember how absolutely substandard and slow postal delivery was in most of the world? Then along came some global competitors (and competing technology in the form of email and faxes) and suddenly they've found Jesus and are all about improving quality and speed of services.

The government should set rules to attempt to maintain a level playing field and then let private industry duke it out to see who has the most effective business model.

Cheers,

Re:Free broadband?

[Net_fiend]

Haha, the rules are setup that way. They're just enforced to the highest bidder willing to "buy" off congressmen. Which is why citizens need to wise up when they vote or not vote at all.

Its all these brainless zombies who go to vote just because they can. Those sorts of people need to go jump in a lake and clear the gene pool of their ignorance.

The US Federal Government has become so large and involved in everyday life that it has affected competition and in general how much we pay for services and what services we can have in the first place. The original 13 (Presidents) are probably rolling in their graves with how badly Big Government has grown. We need to go back to the states being able to vote on their own issues and the competition would come back. Most of the growth of Big Government came around the time of John Marshall. Whilst helping the Judiciary he helped to cement Federal Government powers over states' powers...not good for the common man imo.

Re:Free broadband?

[geekoid]

"Government monopolized services tend to suck. "
Myth. They tend to be run far more efficiently then private companies.

"substandard and slow postal delivery was in most of the world? "
Another Myth. the US has had the best postal service in the world for 100 years.

Many government agency that went private failed, nearly all of them. The one that don't have lower quality and service then they did when they were government run.

The government is responsible to you, a corporation is responsible to it's shareholders.
and then only the large ones.

There are some areas where it being government run makes sense, some that it doesn't.
Creating a space that's free to all will give more opportunity to people to use the net as a resource. Private companies don't care about the people that don't ahve money to spend.
Access to the net is the best tool to get out of poverty.

Those of use in the middle class will continue to pay for faster service.

Re:Free broadband?

[LWATCDR]

Not all government services suck. But some really do.
I am not even opposed to the government providing internet service or infrastructure.
I don't like government mandated monopolies like cable companies.
I don't think the idea of free broadband is a good one since it will never be free somebody has to pay for it. Just as we never had free mail service to use one of your examples.
Community fiber networks? That sounds like a good plan. Like power, water, and mail you pay a fair price for a vital service.
Or the ISPs can set up and compete just like FexEx does with the USPO.

Re:Free broadband?

[collywally]

I don't think that it's so much about who will pay and how but the fact that there is a free sliver of spectrum out there for me to use. I would love to be able to set up a low power transmitter in my neighborhood.

It would go something like this:
1. Invest a small amount into setting up the network. Like maybe $1000.
2. Test just how far a connection could be made from the "tower" (ie. the deck at the back of my apartment).
3. Go to all the local businesses in range and ask them if they would be willing to support a free internet for the local community and maybe some free advertising for about $20 a month.
4. Use these businesses to pay for the bandwidth to the internet.
5. Not profit! But break even.

This, I think, would be a great way to put back a little into my local community. Something that I haven't really been able to do as a Geek.
You could also replace "low power transmitter" with "mesh network" but I have a feeling that the high latency on a mesh network would kill things like Skype.

Re:Free broadband?

[Anonymous Coward]

At issue is the FCC's requirement that the winner offer free wireless broadband services in a portion of the spectrum

So the answer is, the auction winner will provide bandwidth, tower space, roll out. If you want this portion of the spectrum, you have to pay for this.

This is just the telecoms trying to worm their way out of things they agreed to but don't like.

Re:Free broadband?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not have both? The post office is still around and it doesn't suck AS BAD as it used to. If the Government has a basic level of broadband let them have it. It won't be a monopoly because the private carriers/ISPs will still be able to offer their services but having a Government service provides a baseline for performance (You can't compete with free* and offer worse service). Besides not everyone is going to use Government broadband if it actually becomes a reality. Imagine the restrictions that will be on it, no porn, no questionable material that some senator deems inappropriate for kids, monitoring and logging (not that the ISPs aren't doing the latter anyway). I would just think of Government internet as no frills internet and the rest as offering premium services such as faster speeds, higher priority for streaming media, less congestion etc.

Re:Free broadband?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is where the situation gets sticky. We tried subsidized broadband and the telecom industry just took the money and did nothing with it. So the government is thinking well look at the speeds of internet around the world, our rank drops everyday and we need faster internet to remain competitive with the rest of the world or else jobs will go overseas.

So ya we would prefer private really fast internet but at this point the government thinks that isn't going to happen. This is after all the result of population density within the US.

Re:Free broadband?

[RobBebop]

I just want good reasonably priced fast broadband available to everyone.

The problem is that companies get to decide what reasonably priced is. For some people, $10/month is unreasonable and THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO NEED THE SERVICE THE MOST IF THEY WANT TO IMPROVE THEIR LOT IN LIFE (though I suppose an adequate library system is a good substitute).

In rare instances, cities have made it available. Other cities are working towards evaluating if it is worth the cost to setup. But the fact is that local government is the only entity which can ensure fair treatment for less privileged citizens and cities that cannot provide a status quo for their least privileged citizens are at a disadvantage to those who can.

Re:Free broadband?

[one_in_a_milli0n]

Remember how absolutely substandard and slow postal delivery was in most of the world? Then along came some global competitors (and competing technology in the form of email and faxes) and suddenly they've found Jesus and are all about improving quality and speed of services.

Except in Canada, that is. Boy, does this union-infested "company" that is Canada Post suck...

Re:Free broadband?

[magus_melchior]

So what happens when the prominent members of private industry decide to buy out all the small fish? What happens when they start entrenching themselves in their own territories and never let competitors in?

Private industry only works when they actually do "duke it out". The telecom industry, however, has a history of cheating.

How much free broadband?

[Entropy98]

If you win couldn't you just provide a single T-1 line worth of broadband to an entire state and call it "free wireless broadband"
--
IP Network Address Finding

Proposed auction details?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anybody know which proposed auction this is and where we can read about the conditions attached to it?

geeky...

[B5_geek]

I know I'm a geek when i get excited thinking about the Faraday cage they use during these tests! Wow, big enough for an AIRPLANE! I am jealous too, I can admit that.

Re:Am I going to Jail?

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh*

A few hours later my mom picks me up and says, "You're moving with your auntie and uncle in Bel-Air." I whistled for a cab and when it came near, the license plate said FRESH and it had dice in the mirror. If anything I could say that this cab was rare, but I thought naw forget it, yo Homes to Bel-Air! I pulled up to the house about seven or eight and I yelled to the cabby, "Yo homes, smell ya later!" Looked at my kingdom, I was finally there, to sit on my throne as the Prince of Bel-Air.

Fixed. Please update for future trolls.

Death Rays vs Tinfoil Hats

[Doc Ruby]

So the FCC is going to "end debate" with a wireless death ray ?

Tell me for sure: do these tinfoil hats block the government's TV waves from controlling my brain, or amplify them?

Newsworthiness

[flaming error]

The newsworthy part is that the FCC appears to be doing its job.

Not only are they actually attempting to ascertain facts, but they are doing so even after their boss, Verizon, already gave them the authorized version of the truth.

Unexpected this is. Hope's candle flickers on.

Re:Newsworthiness

[0racle]

They only appear to be doing their job. They are going to rerun the same tests that T-Mobile did that show the whole plan is a failure. So, unless T-Mobile's engineers are idiots the FCC's tests can also only end in failure at which point the requirement to provide free wireless broadband to hold that spectrum range will just go away.

They are doing the 'tests' that are required to remove the free access provision just like whoever paid the right person wants them to do.

Re:Newsworthiness

[Comboman]

The newsworthy part is that the FCC appears to be doing its job.

I thought their job was to prevent American children from seeing Janet Jackson's nipple? Why are they doing all this technical engineering stuff?

Re:Newsworthiness

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA.

They are repeating some of T-Mobile's tests. They are also conducting additional tests of their own.

Gov and human values are incommensurate

[Anonymous Coward]

Any large organization and individual humans are different classes of entities.

Large organizations are a form of life, and share with individuals goals of life and growth at any cost.

Just as with societies and the ecology, the only natural limit on the size of gov is the collapse of the social and economic fabric that it depends upon for its existence.

How nice of the FCC.

[Puls4r]

Gee. I was pretty darn happy with my long distance wireless broadband up till 3 months ago. I paid 39.95 a month for a 6 megabit down 500kbit up connection. I live 10 miles outside the nearest DSL, just as far from cable, and the wireless provider in our area doesn't have line of sight. Yet I was able to happily run my gaming, my voip, my email through Sprint Broad Band Direct. Right up until the FCC "reallocated" the spectrum and took my broadband away. Sorry that I'm a skeptic, but I rarely see positive change from government intervention. In this case I saw a very very negative one, as I'm back to 28.8 dial up, the highest our phone lines in this area support.

Distracting from a real issue

[beerdini]

Is anyone with the FCC even aware that the digital signals suck especially in severe weather? This past summer we had some severe weather come through the area and the local channels went out along with the satellite dish. When I changed back to the analog signal the picture was just fine.

Why don't they spend more time on something that really matters instead of waiting for the next big disaster when cell phones will be down from system overuse, and television will be down because the signal is getting too much interference. They haven't screwed up radio too much yet.

Ever notice that technologies like Morse code, radio (ham), and other "antiquated" technologies are always the thing used for communication in disaster movies but not the new state of the art communication system? Why is that? Oh, yeah, because they work and the new stuff doesn't.

Re:Distracting from a real issue

[myspace-cn]

There YOU have the crux of the issue I have basically harped about for several years now.

YOU GET IT! God bless you.

The fcc is being controlled by fascism instead of being controlled by engineers.

When you have such a situation, common sense, as well as common sense physics goes into the trash.

Then those involved get to fight it out in courts or some new stupid half-assed, over-reacted, under-thought legislation get's signed, or some involved get to suffer.

How many times have you actually heard the Emergency Alert System being used for something that actually helps you? Why even have it when it's never going to be used to warn you of a nuke? It's more of an annoyance that your dog barks at.

Yeah, I keep my Greyface Henry Radio, an rci 2950 handy and few other SSB's, and some CB's and amps handy.

This government has been a disaster the last eight years. Every thing they touch is instantly turned to crap. It's no wonder, and no mistake that things that were working good are now screwed up. They don't want us to be organized or informed or have oversight.

Common sense physics would show you that the size of the wavelength is proportional to the frequency.

Example: a 20' basketball would be equal to a wave with analog modulation on a CB radio, where the holes in your microwave over are so small they don't allow the size of the microwave ping-pong ball to get out. So in the microwave, the wave bounces around off the surface, and is absorbed by the food. The CB bounces off of Streets, Parking lots, buildings, homes, and get's absorbed by trees. Don't ask me about the Ionosphere, cause I am hella rusty on that shit. Parts of it bounce, parts absorb and don't.

So when everything went to these god damned microwave signals, we have small penetrating waves cooking our ass's slowly over time.

So a wave does three things.

1.) Travels Forever in a straight line.
2.) Get's absorbed.
3.) Bounces off an object that is larger than itself.

That's why if you have a bunch of trees your VHF analog signals are going to fade when it's windy. The trees moving around are absorbing the waves. Being analog, means it does not need to have a whole packet in order for SOME of the non-absorbed wave to get through.

With the signal now being digital, in order to reproduce the intelligence, you need all the parts of that packet, so when a wave with a digital intelligence is absorbed by those same trees parts of the packets are lost, and without the full packet your signal looks like crap.

Think of it like Zmodem vs. Xmodem transfer interruption. A Zmodem can recover using error control, where the Xmodem transfer is completely lost and must be started again from the beginning.
(A bad example perhaps)

From an engineer's standpoint, you'd pretty much have to say all these problems like net neutrality, fascist media, and technical problems like broadband over power-lines and (this one in this article included) were created on purpose to destroy the public's ability to stay informed.

Your ability to get internet access from the power company should not override my ability to transmit emergency intelligence over the air. Yet, that's exactly what's happened. It's fascist agenda, driven by profit.

Add to that, the intelligence operation on spying on Journalists, and Citizens being used politically along with the rolling out of electronic voting machines, and we Americans have a big mess, with no tools to change it.

Re:Distracting from a real issue

[flatulus]

With the signal now being digital, in order to reproduce the intelligence, you need all the parts of that packet, so when a wave with a digital intelligence is absorbed by those same trees parts of the packets are lost, and without the full packet your signal looks like crap.

I guess you've never heard of FEC (forward error correction).

Re:Distracting from a real issue

[daradib]

Your ability to get internet access from the power company should not override my ability to transmit emergency intelligence over the air. Yet, that's exactly what's happened. It's fascist agenda, driven by profit.

It's not just about emergency, though that is definitely important. Licensed radio communications (for example ham radio) are supposed to be protected from interference by unlicensed emissions, such as Broadband over Power Lines (BPL). It's that simple as FCC policy.

Speeds?

[Puls4r]

I wonder what type of speeds that "free" wireless is going to provide. I know that current wireless offerings - i.e. mobile evdo cards share the tower bandwidth - and generally speaking those towers do NOT have enough bandwidth to support folks on them. I watch speeds on my work system vary from 1500k at night to 500k during the day.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Oh, Great...

[rickb928]

'Free wireless Internet'.

I'm thinking Citizens Band Internet.

This will be fun.

I'm with the telco's on this...

[Alsee]

At issue is the FCC's requirement that the winner offer free wireless broadband services in a portion of the spectrum, a move the wireless industry contends will lead to interference for 3G phone users.

Duh! Of course free wireless broadband is going to cause interference.

The FCC needs to immediately allow them to charge for it in order to prevent interference.

-

FCC testing...LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

If the FCC testing is like the testing they did with broadband over power lines, no ammount of interferance will change their mind. The test will show substantial interferance but the FCC will declare that anything short of a complete disabling of the interferred service isn't enough interferance to wory about.
All the FCC cares about right now is finding ways to make broadband more readily available. They don't let things like interferance to phone service, emergency communications, aircraft communications, broadcast TV or radio or amateur radio get in the way of that.

Tagged

[StickyWidget]

Tagged: PutUpOrShutUp

I'm seriously tired of these arguments, if there is an interference between this and 3G phones it should have been proven by now, and MUCH MUCH earlier than this year...

~Sticky

Re:Tagged

[m3rck]

Exactly. This is about money and the bottom line.

FCC should use independent tests

[KernelMuncher]

I'd be amazed if the FCC doesn't have a standard set of tests that can be used. Why should they use the test procedures of a private company ? Obviously the possibility for manipulating the tests for their private gain exists. So why even allow it?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

interfere with 3g?

[nimbius]

yeah, with the business model maybe.

Free wireless and ponies!

[IronChef]

Does anyone think that we'll ever be getting the free wireless broadband anyway, no matter what the terms of the agreement say?

They won't find any radiological interference

[BattyMan]

if they really, honestly test for any of that, because the "interference" that T-Mobile & the other telcos are so horrified by is to their business models ONLY.

Really. T-Mobile wants to charge US$80/month for a wireless Internet connection. Free wireless Internet in ANY form would 'interfere' with that.

And SINCE WHEN were any of the telcos at all interested in the quality of their service? Once they have your signature on their contract, they'd rather that you found their service unusable, so you won't load it with your traffic. You have to pay _anyway_.

Why do we need VOIP?

[Anonymous Coward]

"And this is all without even considering the technical challenge of routing everything without contacting a central server."

Skype.

Re:Why do we need VOIP?

[MightyYar]

Skype still uses a central server. A phone would need to find a route when it logged in to the network. It's solvable, but would probably take some time that is not currently necessary.

maybe T-Mobile's equipment just sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

much of it i bet comes down to the actual electronics being used in the radios, antennas, and any software used to resolve the signals. the companies that are for this probably have better technology than T-Mobile, and T-Mobile hates it because they can't deal with it with their existing technology.

Oh, those damned monopolies

[twoallbeefpatties]

Yeah, government monopolized services tend to suck. Like, I heard that in Europe, the government owns the cable lines and only leases them out to ISPs, and they only get triple our bandwidth with more competition in one area! What a freaking waste!