The "evidence", I suspect is that their informed analysis doesn't match well with Craig's desires. Very strong evidence, indeed. We need to remember that it took Cellular telephones 17 years to be approved, and about 15 years of that had nothing to do with technical issues. The proponents started off asserting that their current state of the art devices would never cause interference -- I've read their filings -- and they were made to look foolish, since they tested later devices than the ones they based their claims upon. They'll get it right eventually, but I suspect that something more akin to the NAB's counterproposals will need to be used, where broadcasters (and other licensed spectrum users) will retain the ability to shut off interfering devices. We need to remember that the initial push was that the current devices of a year ago would NEVER cause interference. In the first test, they failed miserably. Now, think about how this stuff will work in an emergency. Imagine one-to-one phone calls and emails "Are you alive" interfering with ESSENTIAL emergency information that normally would be delivered to hundreds of thousands. And, if your VOIP phone call doesn't get through the first ten times, up the power, after you are an individual, you own the airwaves, and you want your phone call to get through. Who knew it would take a TV station down? Intel doesn't have enough money in the bank to pay for the damages in a single market. John Willkie -----Mensaje original----- De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En nombre de Dale Kelly Enviado el: Friday, August 03, 2007 11:47 AM Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Asunto: [opendtv] Re: News: Remote-Sensing Devices Fail FCC White Spaces Test Craig wrote: > One must ask about the integrity of this test, just as we had to ask > about the MSTV and FCC tests of COFDM versus 8-VSB. I believe you mean the "MSTV/NAB" tests, where there was evidence of faulty test design and political gerrymandering. Subsequent independent tests, at the same locations, proved the use of inadequate test criteria but could not overcome the political bias. > Me thinks that this could be another example of an effort to kill an > idea based on questionable testing methodology. What evidence do you provide to support this allegation? > To be honest, the FCC is incapable of dealing with issues like this. > They do not have the staff or resources to do a competent job of > managing one of our most valuable national resources. Again, what evidence do you posses to support such a conclusion in this instance? Much of what the FCC and MSTV conclude relative to white space issues is supported by testing done at he CRC. Clearly the FCC are short on technical resources but they do have those skills and they do appear to have the ability to adequately perform such limited tests. The White Space coalition did not find fault with the FCC testing and stated: "they would work with the commission to resolve outstanding issues with regard to expanding access to the Internet" http://www.tvtechnology.com/pages/s.0014/t.7608.html FCC: Prototypes Fail 'White Space' Tests The FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology has issued two reports on initial measurement studies performed on low power RF devices that could be operated within unoccupied television broadcast spectrum known as "TV white spaces." http://www.mstv.org/engtechtop.php See report based upon CRC testing at this location ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.