I don't know how many of you are paying attention to the battle between proprietary high speed 802.11g products. But it is a very dangerous trend for the 2.4ghz spectrum and the industry at large. Listen I do not care what proprietary technology you use on your wired LAN. Because one of your network cables is never going to decide to drill a hole in the wall and connect to my network switch. But the thing that most executives don't understand is how shared the RF spectrum is. Every residence, retail space, small/medium office in NYC shares the same spectrum. We are all packed in too tightly for it to work any other way.

The idea of consumer level products that can operate in what I will call "spectrum saturation" mode is enough to make me re-think my stance on unlicensed spectrum. If one of my neighbors were to install a Atheros SuperG based product and it disabled all the 2.4ghz based devices in my NYC apartment. I am sure I could just knock on my neighbors door and ask them to turn off SuperG mode. Of course they may or may not do it. But that all assumes I can find the location of the SuperG access point. It's just not that easy in NYC.

I am going to be drafting a letter from NYCwireless to president of Weca, the chairperson of the IEEE 802.11g working group, and heads of all the major chips manufacturer begging them to take their new technology to the IEEE. A war of proprietary standards is going to hurt unlicensed spectrum and the wifi industry. This technology just makes it too easy for a single individual to stop the operations of public spectrum. It is the equivalent of every chip manufacturer shipping a RF jammer feature in their products.

Some of my favorite quotes and other links on this topic:
*Standards: Truce pays off for rivals*
http://news.com.com/2009-1033-982341.html
This person clearly does not understand why unlicensed spectrum has been so successful.
"There are areas in which vendors add proprietary products," said Dennis Eaton <http://news.com.com/2008-1082-949617.html?tag=nl>, an Intersil marketing manager and chairman of the Wi-Fi Alliance <http://news.com.com/redir?destUrl=+http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wifialliance.org%2FOpenSection%2Findex.asp&siteId=3&oId=2009-1033-982341&ontId=1035&lop=nl_ex>. "We don't discourage vendors from distinguishing themselves."


Broadcom
http://news.com.com/2100-1039-5138226.html
Let's hope Broadcom's solution treads a little lighter on the spectrum. But I doubt it.


Atheros and Broadcom Both Guilty of Wireless Problems
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1391632,00.asp

Yeah right voluntary warning labels from profit driven US corporation. I have to laugh. That sticker will cost something and what ever that price is it will be too much for them.
"And that's a problem, according to Cohen, who sees potential for big problems. He wants a warning label, at least, slapped on D-Link and Netgear's boxes. "Consumers should understand that when you buy a technology, it interferes with other wireless products."
"I think that's something we should seriously consider," responded Bradley Morse, senior vice president for Marketing for D-Link, "but we have to do more thorough testing." "


**
The Tragedy of the Commons**
http://dieoff.com/page95.htm
This paper does not talk about wireless technology or any technology at all. But why commons assets which use is regulated only by an indiviuals sense of what is right can fail completely for all users.
"Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another.... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit -- in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all."
I wrote a revised version of this paragraph so it makes more sense in this wireless debate. My apologies to the original author.
"Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational executive concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add more bandwidth to his product. And more.... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational executive sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each executive is locked into a system that compels him to increase the bandwidth of this product without limit -- in a world with limited spectrum. Ruin is the destination toward which all executive rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all."



-- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Reply via email to