Dingell Wants Answers on White Spaces

In a move the could slow FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's plans to permit unlicensed wireless devices to use broadcast white spaces, House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) raised tough questions today on why the test results on white space prototypes were not peer reviewed and how the FCC plans to police any interference caused by the devices.

"While I understand that unlicensed devices have worked in other bands and have helped drive technological innovation, the public interest requires more detailed and careful analysis when permitting unlicensed devices to operate in the broadcast television band," Dingell says today in an open letter to Martin.

Martin has put his white spaces proposal on the Nov. 4 open meeting agenda and reportedly has at least the two additional votes needed to adopt it.

Dingell's letter gives the FCC a week, until Oct. 31, to answer the questions.

Dingell's questions:

1) Did you subject the Oct. 15, 2008, report entitled, "Evaluation of the Performance of the Prototype TV-Band White Space Devices Phase II," to a peer-review process? If so, when was the peer review conducted, and by whom? Did the peer-review process result in any changes to the report? If so, please identify those changes.

2) If you do not believe that Office of Management and Budget regulations require a peer review of the Oct. 15 report, why then did the FCC subject an earlier, similar report to peer review?

3) If you believe that a peer review was not required, do you agree that the public interest would be served by ensuring the scientific data underlying this important FCC decision be as sound as possible.

4) One argument in support of permitting unlicensed devices in the television white spaces is that the commission is prepared to remedy interference problems because the commission does so in connection with other unlicensed wireless devices. Please explain the commission's current process for addressing reports of harmful interference in other contexts, such as those addressing "pirate radio" and cell phone jamming equipment, as well as power-level boosters.

5) How would the FCC address reports of harmful interference to free, over-the-air television signals caused by white spaces devices? If a consumer reports interference, how will the commission identify the interfering device? If white spaces devices are sold to consumers, and then interference concerns arise, how will the commission remove these devices from the market?

6) Proponents of allowing devices to operate in the television white spaces also suggest that the commission has experience addressing interference caused by devices that have been modified by a consumer. If a consumer modifies a wireless device (such as a wireless modem or a cell phone) in a way that makes the device non-compliant with its commission certification or commission regulations, and that device causes interference to other licensed users, what does the commission do to remedy the situation?

7) In what other spectrum bands do devices rely upon spectrum-sensing technologies to avoid interference? How does the commission address issues of interference that arise in those bands?

8) Why did the commission decline to adopt a licensed approach to some or all of this spectrum? Does the commission not believe that a licensed approach could help alleviate some of the accountability concerns expressed above?