[opendtv] Re: News: FCC: White Spaces Test "Well Done and Thorough"
- From: Richard Hollandsworth <holl_ands@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
Here is link to Peer Review, incl. Tasking & Summary Memos:
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/
Note that the Tasking Memo did NOT ask whether the CONCLUSIONS in the report
were well supported and appropriate.
THAT is the biggest defect in the FCC/OET WSD PhII Interference Report..
holl_ands
==================================================
--- On Thu, 10/30/08, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [opendtv] Re: News: FCC: White Spaces Test "Well Done and Thorough"
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 1:07 PM
Craig Birkmaier posted:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6609839.html?display=Breaking
+News&referral=SUPP&nid=2228
FCC: White Spaces Test "Well Done and Thorough"
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin tells Congress that engineers report on
unlicensed mobile devices was peer reviewed
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 10/30/2008 9:28:00 AM
[ ... ]
Martin told Dingell that he was not sure the report, which "summarizes
results of tests conducted in public" required the peer review, but said
he had done so "out of an abundance of caution." According to
Martin's
response, a copy of which was supplied to B&C from a congressional
office, the peer review panel found that: 1) the scope of the testing of
spectrum-sensing devices "was appropriate"; 2) the measurement
devices
used 'were appropriate"; 3) given the limitations of the tests, that
the
testing of the potential of a device to cause interference to digital TV
reception and wireless mikes "was appropriate"; and that 4) the tests
were "properly conducted."
----------------------------------
FWIW, part of my note to the FCC was to say that this report, and the
two previous ones on actual receiver performance, were the reason that I
was so astonished by the tentative decision to allow white space
devices. I think the reports are all quite well done. So to me, that's
NOT the issue at all.
If geo-location were always mandatory for the WSD, I would still have
questions on what the database of geo locations was going to permit. But
at least, their report showed that done right, this scheme could work.
When they also allowed auto-sense only, and "defended" that
positiooning
by mandating a mere 3 dB drop in transmitted power compared with geo
location devices, the decision makes, quite honestly, NO SENSE. Not
based on these reports.
I think Dingell and others should not waste time questioning the
reports. Instead, spend your time effectively by questioning the
decision.
Bert
Other related posts:
