A wireless device which would use the so-called "white spaces" between broadcast television channels for wireless communication has failed FCC testing.
This is the second test and second failure in seven months. After the first failure a second device was provided. FCC approval of such devices is dependent on proof that they'll be guaranteed not to interfere with television broadcasts.
According to NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton, "This admission by 'white space' proponents vindicates beyond doubt the interference concerns expressed by broadcasters, sports leagues, wireless microphone companies and theater operators." Wharton said. "Completing a successful transition to digital television ought not to be jeopardized by introducing risky technology that has proven to be unworkable."
Advocates for the coalition of companies behind the white space initiative, including Microsoft, Google, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Intel, and Phillips Electronics, have claimed after both failures that the results weren't valid because the devices weren't functioning properly. However that seems to be a completely relevant circumstance. Interference caused by a malfunctioning device is a legitimate concern for regulators.
Unless the devices can be designed that are guaranteed not to malfunction and interfere with frequencies licensed to broadcasters, and mass manufactured to the same standard, it seems reasonable to require some sort of protection against the types of failures that have ended both tests.
According to NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton, "This admission by 'white space' proponents vindicates beyond doubt the interference concerns expressed by broadcasters, sports leagues, wireless microphone companies and theater operators." Wharton said. "Completing a successful transition to digital television ought not to be jeopardized by introducing risky technology that has proven to be unworkable."
Advocates for the coalition of companies behind the white space initiative, including Microsoft, Google, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Intel, and Phillips Electronics, have claimed after both failures that the results weren't valid because the devices weren't functioning properly. However that seems to be a completely relevant circumstance. Interference caused by a malfunctioning device is a legitimate concern for regulators.
Unless the devices can be designed that are guaranteed not to malfunction and interfere with frequencies licensed to broadcasters, and mass manufactured to the same standard, it seems reasonable to require some sort of protection against the types of failures that have ended both tests.
