John Oram wrote: > Day: > > I'll say the same thing I said several years ago about your opinions > on FCC frequency regulations. > > The FCC is part of a world-wide frequency allocation consortium and > these people pay a heck of a clot of attention to how frequency is > allocated. > > There are public service organizations with truly knowledgeable > volunteers and paid staff which spend an incredible number of hours > protecting against overlapping of licensed and unlicensed frequencies. > They provide bring forward their ideas (lobbying?) to all the nations > who allocate frequency within their territory. > > Facts are what you do in the Ozarks with your rebellious ideas on > frequency usage can have an impact on many people. > > IMO your just typing a lot of BUL**HIT which is not based on the facts > of how the real world works.
One of the ways the real world works is that it relies on bureacracies such as the FCC. One of the characteristics of buracracies is that they get more involved in protecting their political turf than solving the problems which they were created to manage. And one of the responses to this is what you term 'rebellion'. If you look at the posts at [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... you can see the problems of terrain and forest- which would be solved by using lower frequencies. The multi-gig frequencies are great in dense urban areas where you need a million channels. But when the population density goes down and the forest canopy goes up, these commercially available solutions dont work anymore. And one of the ways the real world works is that entrepeneurs will see the problem. The Telcos find that rural customers can cost 10,000$ per line of buried cable, so we all, who live out here, know cable aint coming until the population density goes up. But one of the reasons we live here, is low population density. Another thing you see at [EMAIL PROTECTED] is hardware failure. And at multigig frequencies, they are pushing the limits of the chips, so I aint surprised.
