Comments on: FCC rejects Google Microsoft whitespace devices

By: Tony

Tony — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 20:22:50 +0000

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...

By: Tony

Tony — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:22:50 +0000

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...

By: Tony

Tony — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:22:50 +0000

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...

By: Harold

Harold — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 00:04:30 +0000

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…

By: Harold

Harold — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 23:04:30 +0000

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…

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 01:47:44 +0000

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.

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 00:47:44 +0000

By: Harold Feld

Harold Feld — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 23:44:08 +0000

Oddly, given our usual disagreements, you may find my post about this on the publicknowledge blog interesting.
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1150

By: Harold Feld

Harold Feld — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:44:08 +0000

Oddly, given our usual disagreements, you may find my post about this on the publicknowledge blog interesting. http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1150