MSTV wants to review the review


The Association of Maximum Service Television is using a Freedom of Information Act to attempt to get some answers as to how the latest Office of Engineering and Technology study on unlicensed white space devices came into being. The most recent study was Phase II; in Phase I, the OET report and the peer review came out simultaneously.

MSTV wants to know why that procedure was abandoned for Phase II, and presented a timeline that it finds questionable. According to MSTV’s history, peer review was requested 9/11/08; the OET report was apparently completed 10/1/08; on 10/15/08 FCC Chairman Kevin Martin shared some details with reporters and announced the 11/4/08 vote; and only on 10/28/08 did the peer review see the light of day.

It further wonders why the peer review failed to make any mention the key finding of the Phase II report, the “proof of concept” claim. MSTV wonders if the “proof of concept” language was added to the Phase II report after the peer review. “This purported conclusion is the key to the FCC’s proposal,” said MSTV’s David Donovan. “It is simply amazing the peer review analysis would not mention this key finding.”

“These are troubling questions given the FCC’s plan not to put the Phase II OET report out for public comment and to rush a decision on the 11/4 meeting,” Donovan concluded. “Because of these procedural irregularities, we urge the FCC to follow its own procedure, and place the Phase II Report out for public comment.”

RBR/TVBR observation: The protest against this FCC action continues unabated, all while standard operating procedure is seemingly ignored. MSTV notes that even the peer review looked at the tests, not the conclusions based on them. It’ll be interesting to see how the FCC vote goes Tuesday, and if its yes, whether a Capitol Hill override can be mustered.