David P. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jim - it's worth a discussion on this, but it's presupposing a lot to assume that 802.11a *will* always be dominant.That's exactly why this is *so* wrong. Unlicensed spectrum should be exactly that. Imagine if the 2.4Ghz spectrum had had similar rules imposed. Would we have seen microwave ovens that used 802.11b protocols to regulate their emissions? No. We wouldn't have had 802.11b.
The question should be what's the *minimum* control and enforcement required to keep the band useable. Not what's the control required to encourage a market place. Because every time we ask that second question we limit innovation by enforcing a specific technological development path. Which in turn tends to just support the current BigCo status quo.
However, even with UWB on the horizon, there may be a case for bands in this area (such as 3.6Ghz) which have more tightly defined requirements in order to support a specific need. Such as long distance point to point links. But the onus should be on the legislators to prove that the requirements are actually needed to ensure orderly usage.
--
Julian Bond Email&MSM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/
CV/Resume: http://www.voidstar.com/cv/
M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173 T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
--
general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/>
[un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
