Indeed. I am not worrying about the technologies ability to innovate beyond mistaken assumptions, but I am worried about the potential for ignorant policy that protects a static technology, thus stifling or at least stalls innovation toward an ultimate goal of open spectrum and SDRs.
Respectfully, the masses are not screaming for Wi-Fi. They are screaming to be connected, period. Wi-Fi is simply the name many are calling it. Patrick -----Original Message----- From: Allen Fear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 1:42 PM To: Patrick Leary; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [BAWUG] The Tragedy of the Fondas: An anaolgy everyone can understand With all due respect Patrick, aren't you giving Bridget a little too much credit? Technology will role on even if it has to do so over mistaken assumptions, imperfect technologies, or mediocre acting. Flaws and deficiencies didn't stop Ethernet or IPv4 from taking hold, and all signs indicate that 802.11 derivatives are gaining similar traction. Like it or not, the masses are screaming for WiFi connectivity, and the businesses that deliver it will win. Sure, better technological solutions, just like better entertainment options, are theoretically possible, but I'm guessing that in 2010 the masses will still be drawn to flashy second-rate actresses with great mouths and mildly amusing sitcoms filled with canned laughter and that WiFi will be more pervasive than ever. --- Patrick Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I figured out a humorous way to explain the > importance of my "not all > unlicensed is Wi-Fi" crusade: > > Imagine, as if in a nightmare... > > First, the innovative new movie business, an > offshoot of the entertainment > business, gives us the talented actor Henry Fonda. > Known as a craftsman in a > young field, his work was respected and followed by > a core group. A > generation later we get Jane and Peter. There's > Jane. Not especially > talented, but with looks and that mouth, she gets > lots of flashy attention. > We start to see Jane in places maybe an actor does > not belong, like > political rallies and war zones. Jane is everywhere. > > > Before too long, Jane, because of her visibility, > begins to be given credit > for the acting work of her brother Peter. Imagine > that, a generation later, > even the work of Peter's daughter Bridget gets > routinely mistakenly ascribed > to Jane. Soon all we hear is Jane everyone. Wow! Did > you hear what "Jane" is > doing now? Everyone supports "Jane." Amazingly, > "Jane" becomes synonymous > with acting. She even marries into big media! > > Eventually, only a small group of film enthusiasts > even understand the truth > that "Jane" is actually just a one part of the total > Fonda legacy. > Meanwhile, as a result of the all the misplaced > acclaim, imagine that laws > are made saying all movies must star "Jane." > Politicians, press and industry > all engage in self-congratulation for their wisdom > and vision. Before long, > the other later generation Fondas (actually doing > the real work, but getting > no credit) fall into obscurity and go broke, their > innovation and talent > lost forever. > > Movies, errantly putting the genuinely limited Jane > (now getting a bit long > in the tooth as well) in every film regardless of > the role, begin to flop. > Inevitably, the world says, "why were we so excited > about this 'Jane'? I > thought everyone said she go do this role. This is > awful. Jane was all hype. > Jane really disappointed us." Poor Jane. Good at > what she really did, but > squeezed into roles she simply could not fulfill by > a rising tide that did > not understand the truth. > > Along comes the legacy competing entertainment > medium of live stage > interests, "We have been here many years before > Jane. We knew she was would > let you down and flop. Don't worry, forget about > Jane. Help us build more > live stages. With government support, we promise to > meet your needs..." > > The end > > For those who still don't get it: > the entertainment business = communications policy > the movie business = unlicensed spectrum policy > Henry Fonda = the first 802.11 > Peter Fonda = the first unlicensed wireless > broadband systems > Jane Fonda = Wi-Fi > Bridget Fonda = later generation advanced unlicensed > systems > Live stage interests = wireline industry > > Please help prevent the nightmare. > > Kind regards, > > Patrick Leary > -- > general wireless list, a bawug thing > <http://www.bawug.org/> > [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. This footer also confirms that this email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifies and with authority, states them to be the views of Alvarion Inc. Scanning of this message and addition of this footer is performed by SurfControl SuperScout Email Filter software in conjunction with virus detection software. -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
