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

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.

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

[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.

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?

[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?

[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.

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: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.

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.

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

[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?