Slashdot Mirror


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."

7 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. Great Idea... not by jhfry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
  2. Why do we need phone companies? by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    1. Re:Why do we need phone companies? by mweather · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One word: batteries.

    2. Re:Why do we need phone companies? by pete-classic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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

  3. Re:Stunned by jhfry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

    --
    Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
  4. geeky... by B5_geek · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
  5. Newsworthiness by flaming+error · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.