On Tue, 8 Sep 2015, Dave Taht wrote:
Well, no... we need the concept of "the public's" spectrum, also.
What does that mean? Only devices that have FOSS firmware are allowed to
send in this spectrum?
Because I actually fail to see the fundamental difference to spectrum I
use to communicate from my purchased devices from VENDOR1 and VENDOR2 that
I run myself, and my purchased device I use to communicate that are from
VENDOR1 and VENDOR2 where the device from VENDOR2 is run by a mobile
provider. I mean, do we rule out wifi networks run by providers?
Now, I will admit that I have no idea how LTE-U looks like on RF, but
what's so different about it compared to the different other things
sending in there like Bluetooth and wifi (and wifi has many different
encodings).
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.
Yes, in sweden we have something called (translated) "Rights of public
access" to land for instance, I'm allowed to go camping in someone elses
forest as long as it's noncommercial and I leave it as I found it.
What is the word, actually?
"Allemansrätten". Literally "everymansright".
Well, pushing the responsibility back on the actual users of the
technology is fine by me. Enforcement seems only to be of a concern on
the DFS channels around a limited number of airports.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
