Chairman Martin & Admiral Nelson
Comments continue to pour in on the FCC’s open proceeding on just how to proceed with allowing unlicensed wireless devices to operate in the broadcast band.
FCC testing suggests portable devices that are supposed to sense when a channel is occupied don’t do a very good job, though proponents of the devices say the FCC testing was stricter than it need be, and that one of the devices was broken.
One of the latest to weigh in was microphone maker Shure, which is sure spectrum-sensing devices would do a number on its products and the ministers and performers who rely on them.
Nobody seems to mind fixed devices, even unlicensed ones, that apparently are guided by satellites, but the mobile devices have broadcasters, Broadway producers, sports executives, and microphone manufacturers particularly exercised over the prospects of interference to their respective businesses.
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin would be happy to approve the devices to spur the rollout of wireless competion and broadband deployment, but has said he wants assurances the devices won’t muck up the DTV transition.
Computer companies like Google and Microsoft say broadcasters are being overprotective and are sitting on a bunch of white space that is being wasted in spectrum that is prime real estate for wireless applications.
The FCC has yet to decide whether to allow unlicensed mobile devices.
It is tough to find someone with a pocket protector and no dog in the fight, but somebody with an impressive spectrum policy resume and some thought-provoking ideas on the dangers of unlicensed devices is Michael J. Marcus, currently a consultant and formerly associate chief for technology in the FCC engineering shop.
Marcus says the FCC does not have enough people monitoring interference compliance and that given how tough it is to get Chinese toy makers not to slather their toys with child-endangering led paint, it is a frightening prospect to think of the same country flooding the market with unlicensed devices that are supposed to meet some FCC standard for not slathering their interfering waves all over the DTV transition.
But rather than try to rephrase his cogent and entertaining argument–Lord Nelson and the blind eye reference was my favorite–I recommend surfing over to Spectrum Talk, for something of an eye-opener.
Bruna commented:
I don't think the FCC spokesman is aniktg it one step further, that's always what the law has been. Anytime someone purchases a Part 15 device, they essentially become an FCC licensee. Most folks just don't know it. A lot of the early wireless ISPs thought they could do anything in the 2.4 Ghz band until the requirements of Part 15 became widely known in the industry. BPL vendors and system operators operating under Part 15 thought the same as well.
Turny commented:
The prior comment seems uclnear on the broadcast flag concept. There is no need to remove the flag (even assuming it qualifies for protection under 1202). In the absence of a mandate, device makers remain free to make technologies that simply ignore the flag, as they are entitled to under 1201(c)(3) (even assuming the broadcast flag regime otherwise qualifed for protection under 1201). Ignoring the flag cannot give rise to liability under 1202.
wow gold commented:
¼ò½é£ººÚÁú½wow gold£¬»¬Ñ©³¡£¬±ùµÆ£¬¹þ¶û±ö£¬»áÒéwow gold¹Û¹âÒÔ¼°¹úÄÚÍâwow gold°æ±¾.6787671@WOWGOLDS.COM
wow gold commented:
ɽÎ÷wow gold,Öйúwow gold,Öйúwow goldÍø,wow gold,Öлªwow gold,Ì«Ôwow gold,ɽÎ÷,wow gold¾°µã,wow goldͼƬ6787671@WOWGOLDS.COM
wow power leveling commented:
Buy wow gold, Welcome to wow power leveling website! we offer wow powerleveling
ISAIAH commented:
Break the ice
MJMarcus commented:
Thanks for the mention of my blog.
I hope that the broadcasting community will agree and press the FCC for a general step- up of equipment authorization surveillance and enforcement independent of how the white space issue, Docket 04-186, is resolved.
While Mr. Eggerton focuses on unlicensed devices, the lack of enforcement interest encompasses all devices subject to FCC regulations: licensed transmitters, unlicensed transmitters, and incidental radiators such as personal computers. All could interfere with broadcasting and other services if the rules are not followed.
Even documented interference complaints from devices not subject to current regulation don't get FCC management attention. For example the VSAT community complained for over a decade about interference from "fuzzbuster"-type radar detectors before FCC took action, and even then took the narrowest possible approach. (Other receivers above 1 GHz are still subject to no regulation at all even though there are lots of low cost sonsumer products in this range now.)
When NAB complained about overpowered FM band devices last year, did anyone ask the question how could this have been happening and what could be done to PREVENT it in this and other areas?
This is not the fault of Chairman Martin and the current commissioners as it predates them. But they can do something to make limited but real surveillance of devices subject to FCC rules realistic and have a enforcement program that does not just respond to complaints from powerful trade associations and law firms.
We may disagree on 04-186 but I think we can agree on this issue.