Slashdot Log In
FCC Aims To End Debate With Wireless Tests
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri Sep 05, 2008 10:31 AM
from the can-you-hear-me-n— dept.
from the can-you-hear-me-n— dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
Mobile: FCC Report Supports Use of White Spaces For Wireless 143 comments
After the FCC's tests mentioned early last month, andy1307 submits word of the FCC's report (released Friday), writing that "the major telcos disagree with the FCC's report that concluded that using white spaces to provide free wireless internet 'would not cause major interference with other services. ... The FCC concluded that sufficient technical protections would prevent major problems.' FCC chairman Kevin Martin's proposal is to auction off the spectrum, with some rules attached. 'Some of the spectrum would be used for free Internet service, which would have content filters to block material considered inappropriate for children.'"
[+]
Free Wireless Band Gets FCC OK 77 comments
narramissic writes "Last month the FCC conducted tests to determine whether mobile devices using a new US radio band (2,155 to 2,175 MHz) with free wireless service would cause significant interference with cell phones using a nearby band. Now, the results are in and in a report released Friday, the FCC concluded that 'the analysis shows that an AWS-1 and AWS-3 device operating in close proximity does not necessarily result in interference.' Still, T-Mobile accuses the FCC of basing its conclusions on new assumptions that weren't used when the tests took place. But at least one party is happy: M2Z praised the report, saying 'There is no longer any need for American consumers, the public interest and the FCC's regulatory process to be held hostage as it has been for the last five months by incumbent carriers... who have used unfounded claims of interference to disguise their intent to prevent the introduction of new broadband competition in the AWS-3 band.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Stunned (Score:2)
There must be something nefarious in there somewhere. *Dons patented triple protection foil hat*
Re:Stunned (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Great Idea... not (Score:5, 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.
Re:Great Idea... not (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
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 co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 w
Ooooookay (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Hey the FCC is from the Governemnt! I am SURE they are here to help us.
Re:Ooooookay (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Newsworthiness (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
I thought their job was to prevent American children from seeing Janet Jackson's nipple? Why are they doing all this technical engineering stuff?
Parent
Why do we need phone companies? (Score:5, 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.
Re:Why do we need phone companies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Five words: not in my back yard(pocket?)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why do we need phone companies? (Score:5, 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
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
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 tower
Re:Why do we need phone companies? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Why do we need phone companies? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Ending the debate? (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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,
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
"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 shareholder
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org]. Other cities are working towards evaluating if it is worth the cost to setup [cambridgema.gov]. But the fact is that local government is the only entity which can ensure fair treatment for less pri
geeky... (Score:5, 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.
How nice of the FCC. (Score:2)
Speeds? (Score:2)
Oh, Great... (Score:3, Funny)
'Free wireless Internet'.
I'm thinking Citizens Band Internet.
This will be fun.
I'm with the telco's on this... (Score:2)
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.
-
Tagged (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Free wireless and ponies! (Score:2)
Does anyone think that we'll ever be getting the free wireless broadband anyway, no matter what the terms of the agreement say?
Re: (Score:2)
have convened at a Boeing facility in Seattle this to watch as the FCC performs tests
omissioninsummary?
Signal drop-out.