FCC rejects Google Microsoft whitespace devices

by Jerry Brito on August 3, 2007 · Comments

In the most recent podcast, Jim Harper and I had a little back-and-forth about the idea of a commons model for spectrum. I made the point that while I was hopeful for the future, technology that makes spectrum scarcity a thing of the past (thus allowing a commons to work) isn’t quite here yet. Regulating based on theoretical technology, I said, doesn’t bode well for the here and now.

Well, today comes word that the FCC has rejected the mystery whitespace devices that Google, Microsoft, and others in a consortium pushing for commons treatment of parts of the 700 MHz, had offered for testing. A year ago, the New America Foundation put out a paper called “Why Unlicensed Use of Vacant TV Spectrum Will Not Interfere with Television Reception.” According to The Washington Post today,

After four months of testing, the agency concluded that the devices either interfered with TV signals or could not detect them in order to skirt them. Now the coalition of companies backing the devices, which includes Dell, Intel, EarthLink, Hewlett-Packard and Philips, is going back to the drawing board, possibly to redesign the devices and meet with FCC engineers to explore other options. The FCC said Tuesday that it would continue experimenting with such devices, which use vacant TV frequencies.

I really hope they succeed because I don’t think there’s anything wrong with allowing free use of true whitespaces or commons as long as the technology really works and use truly doesn’t cause interference to an adjacent licenses holder. That said, we can’t devalue otherwise useful spectrum by allocating it as a commons until we know the tech works.

Comments Posted in: Wireless & Spectrum Policy

  • Tony
    Hm... I don't think the rejection was true, or at least it's not true anymore...

    http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20081104/tc_nm/us...
  • If the Philips device worked, why do you suppose the FCC rejected the technology? It seems the broadcasters are most worried about the technology being permitted...
  • Reading Harry Feld's blog it appears that the Philips device basically works and the MS device doesn't. That's not at all surprising. Philips was a leader in the development of the UWB system that uses licensed spectrum in such a way as not to interfere with licensed uses, and MS is, well, we all know what they are.
  • Oddly, given our usual disagreements, you may find my post about this on the publicknowledge blog interesting.
    http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1150
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: