On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:22 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 8 Sep 2015, Dave Taht wrote: > >> wifi, and the carriers... which bugs me. 5.x ghz is the people's >> spectrum, that we should be free to use any way we want... and to make
Please note that the LTE-U debate is separate from the lockdown debate, which only has a day to run. Can we get more letters into the FCC for the lockdown problem? > > > Well, in the US at least, corporations are people, so... Corporations are people now, with an indefinite lifespan - with the rights of an adult, and the morals of a child. If it were up to me, the lifetime of a corporation would be inversely proportional to the number of employees. Lest you think this is crazy, corporations were formed only for limited times and purposes all the way up to the late 1800s. I try really hard not to let my politics not interfere with engineering truths - I'm always quoting feynman's last comments on the shuttle commission on that. > But that aside, I don't know if there is anything that can be done really, > unlicensed is unlicensed and if it's not free for everybody to use, what is > it? Yes, a core difference in outlook is that - after two decades of "the public"'s use - what people insist on calling "unlicensed" spectrum is really "the people's" spectrum - and if more people thought about it that way, they would be reluctant to hand over even a tiny bit of it to the carriers. And jeeze, what makes sense - on the "licensed" spectrum - is the government auctions it off for big bucks one year, and then the public pays rents on it for all eternity. Far saner to have more openly available spectrum One failed concept in america, at least, is the idea of a commons - as in a tragedy of the commons - elsewhere, for example, "public lands" are actually "the queen's" lands and people tend to treat them with more respect. Still... a meme to propigate and redefine the debate with is that 2.4 and 5.x ghz is now - by common usage - the "public's" spectrum, and not "unlicenced" spectrum. There are other precedents - at least in europe - for defining things this way - squatters rights, etc. - but jeeze, really, anyone with a wifi AP of their own should have a visceral reaction to anyone else encroaching on it.... > Also, isn't it pretty much the same players in wifi and LTE space, Qualcomm, > Broadcom and the others, they're in both spaces and I don't see what they > have to gain to make wifi worse? I don't see them doing a whole lot to make wifi better, either. > And 802.11 isn't really open either, and the unlicensed spectrum still > requires that devices are approved to be operated there, right, so if FCC > and the likes do their job properly then these technologies should work > together at least on the RF level? I appreciate the optimism, but honestly, given the low level of analysis so far, my vote would be to boot the whole idea back to the beginning for a couple years to bake some more. And to go back to improving wifi dramatically, in ways everyone can use. For free. > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected] -- Dave Täht endo is a terrible disease: http://www.gofundme.com/SummerVsEndo _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
