http://www.geeknewscentral.com/2008/11/05/fcc-opens-white-space/ Geek News Central is the technical site for Geeks. We Spin tech for the common man. With a Family of Tech Shows and Content. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:38:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.geeknewscentral.com/2008/11/05/fcc-opens-white-space/comment-page-1/#comment-4280 Mike Staples Thu, 06 Nov 2008 17:09:18 +0000 http://www.geeknewscentral.com/2008/11/05/fcc-opens-white-space/#comment-4280 I'm a career broadcast engineer, and what I am about to say comes from 35 years of dealing with interference issues, not out of any provincial turf-defending viewpoint. My job is to make things work, not to prevent them from working. <span class="mt-export2wp"></span> Identifying sources of interference and resolving the problems is usually a difficult task at best. The concept that exists in most peoples' minds of riding around with a magical direction-finding device, quickly locating the interfering device and having it shut off is really a fantasy. In reality, most interference is hard to pinpoint (even when from a stationary source) and having it shut off is fraught with legal and practical difficulties. <span class="mt-export2wp"></span> The problem with unlicensed white space devices is - not being glib - that they are unlicensed. That means that in the event of interference problems, there is little or nothing that can (or will) be done by the FCC. In the unlikely event that the source of interference is located - *very* difficult at best, even supposing the FCC would attempt it - there isn't much that can be done. No license to revoke, and no way to prevent the user from obtaining another device even if their is confiscated (extremely unlikely), so what does that leave, sending them to bed early? <span class="mt-export2wp"></span> The regulatory debacle that was CB radio, and the present-day problems with marine emergency radio services being disrupted by truck drivers using marine transceivers as long-range CB's are only two examples of the FCC's lack of ability or desire to conduct serious interference enforcement, so it's hard to see white space devices being any more carefully overseen. <span class="mt-export2wp"></span> The "safe zone" idea is at best naive; users of white space devices are likely to take them wherever they wish, totally disregarding the "safe zones" - supposing they even know where the "safe zones" are in the first place. <span class="mt-export2wp"></span> Please understand that I'm not saying white space devices can't or shouldn't exist; I see them as a huge boon, but simply believe that in its rush to bring this service into being, the FCC has failed to correctly assess the real-world implications and put in place measures that will assure peaceful coexistence between the new devices and those already in service. <span class="mt-export2wp"></span> <span class="mt-export2wp"></span> I’m a career broadcast engineer, and what I am about to say comes from 35 years of dealing with interference issues, not out of any provincial turf-defending viewpoint. My job is to make things work, not to prevent them from working.

Identifying sources of interference and resolving the problems is usually a difficult task at best. The concept that exists in most peoples’ minds of riding around with a magical direction-finding device, quickly locating the interfering device and having it shut off is really a fantasy. In reality, most interference is hard to pinpoint (even when from a stationary source) and having it shut off is fraught with legal and practical difficulties.

The problem with unlicensed white space devices is – not being glib – that they are unlicensed. That means that in the event of interference problems, there is little or nothing that can (or will) be done by the FCC. In the unlikely event that the source of interference is located – *very* difficult at best, even supposing the FCC would attempt it – there isn’t much that can be done. No license to revoke, and no way to prevent the user from obtaining another device even if their is confiscated (extremely unlikely), so what does that leave, sending them to bed early?

The regulatory debacle that was CB radio, and the present-day problems with marine emergency radio services being disrupted by truck drivers using marine transceivers as long-range CB’s are only two examples of the FCC’s lack of ability or desire to conduct serious interference enforcement, so it’s hard to see white space devices being any more carefully overseen.

The “safe zone” idea is at best naive; users of white space devices are likely to take them wherever they wish, totally disregarding the “safe zones” – supposing they even know where the “safe zones” are in the first place.

Please understand that I’m not saying white space devices can’t or shouldn’t exist; I see them as a huge boon, but simply believe that in its rush to bring this service into being, the FCC has failed to correctly assess the real-world implications and put in place measures that will assure peaceful coexistence between the new devices and those already in service.

]]>