MediaG3 (MDGC)

[beachsideeddy2]

You must have missed the rule-making process is how the FCC plans to assure the devices, for which the FCC wrote rules so manufacturers would spec them properly, do not interfere with the other current overlapping uses of the spectrum. Why else would the rule making process have been announced as having begun on Nov. 30, 2010? The device parameters were defined (limiting interference) but the method of how to totally prevent interference has yet to be defined. Stuff like this:

"I wanted to ensure that our rules specify that, in the event of significant interference caused by an unlicensed device, the party responsible for this device will also be responsible for rectifying the problem and assume the cost," Tate said. "Some companies have assured us that this will be the case; that their business reputation requires it and it is indeed 'good business' for them to correct the situation."

So there you have it, unlicensed devices with rules yet to be attached. And with a database company that will have to be paid in order to prevent local interference, there will be costs.

And with Val holding a bag full of 10 year old junk, crap which was built for the wrong spectrum, the whole topic of whitespace is moot as far as MDGC is concerned.