Marlon, I think I can appreciate most everything you've said. I can only add to each of your points, while accepting your input, why I think that your (and my) life would be better if we had some more constructive requirements in the wisp market than "anything that fits the transmit mask".

It's interesting that you should bring up a 30 YEAR old technology as a good example for an equipment life standards discussion. hehehehehe

It was just an example of how FATALLY flawed the change to "let the market decide" between generation I cellular (analog) and generation II cellular (first generation digital cellular) was, and we've all paid dearly for it (whether most people know it or not). It was the blanket assertion that No-Darwinism is necessarily worse than Darwinism and to be rejected out-of-hand.

US manufacturers are free to choose who and what they want! It's working perfectly.

I think you meant "carriers or providers" in the above. Where GSM rules apply (that's most of the world) service is seamless ... it's the best world for the customers. Since wisps business as service providing is mostly fixed, I'll grant you that "seamless" is not a meaningful advantage. But consider this. As a service provider in the GSM world all brands of GSM equipment are interchangable. From a service provider perspective you can get the best equipment prices (because there's more choices of suppiers).
From the manufacturer, they can sell the same equipment world-wide, so they
build in higher volume. From a manufacturer perspective I know this inherently, but service providers should all know that the volume a manufacturer produces has a higher impact than anything else on manufacturing cost (and thus selling price). Equipment manufacturers & providers who build & deploy GSM enjoy significantly lower equipment cost. So let's try this again:

US manufacturers are free to choose who and what they want! It's working perfectly.

If working perfectly means you don't care that the equipment costs more because of the free-for-all and you've no protection from destructive interworking, then I accept it's working perfectly!

We'll see.  That's what the FCC just did with 3650.

Agreed.  I'm hopeful that this was a good move.

And lets be real here eh? No matter how good something we do is, much of Europe will do it differently just because we did it first.

Not quite the point. I don't care what Europe does either. More countries on this planet now choose to establish rules compatible with ETSI than with the US FCC (that's another big part of what the cellular free-for-all here cost us). THAT was my point. Look at the manufacturers that you buy your wisp equipment from. They are charging you for equipment that they can only build for US markets and the few countries left on the planet that accept US FCC wireless rules (not too many). Imagine how much less it might cost you if they could manufacturer in the greater volume to sell to all markets.

As for having ALL devices be wifi? No thanks! There are good things coming out of the proprietary market.

I agree, wasn't implying all devices have to be wifi. Consider this example: One of the middle bands at 5GHz is being opened for ANY technology, as long as they have a US DOT approved DFS (as I understand it). Could be 802.11, could be Canopy, could be anything ... as long as they all support the DFS so that they don't talk on the US military radar. This is what I understood ETSI to have set for the 5GHz RLAN bands (in most countries on the planet) ... doesn't have to be hyperlan2, as long as they all support TPC & DFS. Where do you think 5.4 Canopy has been shipping for some time already? A couple organizing standard requirements doesn't mean everybody has to deploy the exact same technology, but it could make everybody's life a whole lot better. This is what I suggested under the term "middle ground" ... in your terms somewhere costructively between Pure-Darwinism and No-Darwinism as you put it.

What made beta better than VHS? Certainly part of what made VHS better was the availability.

Sony designed Beta, but intended to be the only supplier (Proprietary). VHS was successful because of the availability, because of the consortium of companies who all agreed to support a common design. VHS won precisely because of the standard (the availability as you put it). When Sony came out with their "next" format (8mm) they made sure they offered the design to a consortium of companies who would agree to support a compatible design, which is why 8mm was succesful ... a 180 from their previous (Beta) position. Japanese learned fast. World 3rd generation cellular standards are a battleground between Japan and Europe (US design is not even a contender, but US manufacturers try to feed their inputs to both Japan and Europe standards bodies ... but we're the outsiders in both venues).

Technically? Maybe Beta was better. I'd seen both but didn't really see any difference. For me, the best one was the cheapest one.

I never saw Beta, but I've heard enough people who have describe it as better to trust it probably was. VHS was the cheaper (and the one I chose too), but it was cheaper because it was a standard! :-)

I don't see too much interest in the "big picture", so whether you agree or not I'm happy to discuss the topic. Bye the way, since this is on a WISPA list, one of the biggest things the Cellular Carriers have working for them is that their "Industry Association" (CTIA) has such a powerful influence over the manufacturers who build equipment for their members. APCO (another operators association, for public safety radio systems) has the same influence over companies that make equipment for their market. EVEN IF THE FCC CHOSE NOT TO IMPOSE REQUIREMENTS, AN EFFECTIVE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION CAN. But that's a different discussion.

WISPA Wireless List:



Reply via email to